Preamble

The House met at half-pastTwo o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (COLNE VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Old Statutes (Fines)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in connection with his review of small fines in old statutes.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): The work is going forward, but a good deal of consultation with other Government Departments, local authority associations and others will be necessary before specific proposals can be formulated.

Mr. Hynd: Having regard to the change in the value of money and the limitations imposed on magistrates by some of these ridiculously small fines, such as a maximum fine of 5s. for allowing cattle to stray on the highway, will the Home Secretary do his best to have some more up-to-date amounts settled as soon as possible?

Mr. Butler: In the pre-1914 statutes there are already 600 fines scattered through 150 statutes, and, what with our relations with local authorities and others, it would take a little time to set this right—but I do not underestimate its importance.

Mr. Ernest Davies: What is to prevent these fines being revised in Measures

when they are consolidated? There is at present 'before the House the Highways Bill, in which the penalties are quite inconsistent as between one offence and another. Could not that opportunity be taken to revise the penalties?

Mr. Butler: The trouble about that is that it would be taking piecemeal action, but we will do so where we can.

Casement Diaries

Mr. du Cann: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now considered the situation created by the publication of the Casement diaries in Paris and New York and the forthcoming publication in London; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration he has given to the request that the documents belonging to the late Sir Roger Casement shall be handed over to the Dublin Museum.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am considering the whole position very carefully in the light of the publication of the book to which my hon. Friend refers. I am not yet able to say more, but I hope to be able to give a fuller reply before long, when my inquiries are completed.

Mr. du Cann: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he is able to say whether, when he comes to make his statement, to which we shall look forward in the hope that it will end this sad controversy which has lasted such a long time, he will be able to permit inspection of the originals? Is he able to say what is the legal position of those people, of whom I understand my right hon. Friend is one, who have copies of this book in their possession as regards the Official Secrets Act?

Mr. Butler: I would not like to answer the second part of my hon. Friend's question without notice. In regard to the first part, I am sorry that I cannot take this matter any further today, but I will do so in the very near future. The position is that there are a lot of considerations to be borne in mind, but directly I can make a statement I will do so.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Home Secretary aware that this book, "Black Diaries",


which has been stigmatized as the indecent diaries of Sir Roger Casement, has now found its way into the House of Commons Library? Is he also aware that the longer he delays his statement the longer will people in Ireland, America and abroad believe that he is whitewashing forgery? Is it not time that he made up his mind to come right out and hand the diaries back to where they belong?

Mr. Butler: The great question is where do the diaries belong, which is precisely what I am at present considering I have to consider, for example, the representations made recently to me from solicitors representing persons who claim to possess the copyright of these writings, and it is precisely the testamentary aspect which I am at present considering. When I have got that clear I hope it will be possible to take a decision about this. I am sorry that it is not possible to give an answer today.

Mr. Hyde: Will my right hon. Friend answer this point, on which there is a great deal of public curiosity? Could he inform the House whether or not the originals of these diaries are in existence, or whether they have been destroyed?

Mr. Butler: The answer is that they are in existence.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, on balance, it would do much less harm to publish these documents than to go on suppressing them?

Mr. Butler: We are not exactly suppressing them, but I understand the importance of the right hon. Gentleman's question. There are other considerations in relation to other of the diaries which have not been reproduced in that particular " black " volume which need a certain amount of consideration, which I shall be glad to discuss with the right hon. Gentleman if he so desires.

Probation Service

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to set up the Departmental Committee for an inquiry into all aspects of the Probation Service; and what are the names of the members of the Committee.

Mr. R. A. Butler: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and 1 hope shortly to be in a position

to appoint the Committee, and we shall then announce the full membership. Meanwhile, I am glad to say that Mr. R. P. Morison, Q.C., has accepted our invitation to be Chairman. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the proposed terms of reference.

Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that he proceeds with the matter as quickly as possible? Is he aware that there has been a considerable amount of agitation with regard to the Probation Service?

Mr. Butler: Yes, certainly. This is one of the most important aspects of the work for which I am responsible. Hon. Members will see the terms of reference; we now have the Chairman, and I hope shortly to appoint the Committee.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is it proposed to include among the members of the Committee any men or women with actual experience of the Probation Service?

Mr. Butler: Although part of the decision has been taken, the complete decision has not. If the hon. Gentleman would like to put any point to me in relation to that I should be glad to deal with it.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are considerable complaints that the Service is understaffed and over-worked and that a great deal of valuable work for youth could be accelerated if the staff were increased? Will that matter come within the terms of reference?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman had better read the terms of reference, which will mean that I shall not give him an inaccurate answer.

Following are the terms of reference:

DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON THE PROBATION SERVICE

To inquire into and make recommendations on:

(a)all aspects of the Probation Service in England and Wales and in Scotland, including recruitment and training for the Service, its organization and administration, the duties of probation officers, and their pay and conditions of service having regard to their qualifications and duties and to pay and conditions of service in related fields; and
(b) the Approved Probation Hostel system in England and Wales and in Scotland.

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the Principal Probation Officer's report on the work of the Leicester Probation Service during 1958, from which it is evident that the two outstanding features of this year have been an increase in all sections of their probation duties and a serious staff shortage for the greater part of the year with the result that despite the tenacity of each probation officer and despite the extra hours of work put in by them to cope with the situation, some relinquishing of previous standards of supervision has been inevitable; and what immediate steps he now proposes to take in this matter.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): Yes, Sir. Probation committees are responsible for appointing sufficient probation officers, and I understand that the Leicester Probation Committee is doing its best to fill the one vacancy for a man officer. I am glad to say that more men than ever before are now in training for probation work and will become available for appointment in due course.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that there is very considerable concern in Leicester because the lack of people to fulfill the duties of probation officer is resulting in the failure of the systematic examination of cases, while individual cases cannot be supervised by the principal or the senior probation officer? The resulting position is becoming very serious, so will the hon. and learned Gentleman take steps to remedy the position?

Mr. Renton: The position in Leicester is not really so bad. When the vacancy for a man has been filled the average case-load will be reduced from its present level of about 69 to the level of 575, which is considered reasonable. The Report of the Principal Probation Officer said that the average case load for women probation officers was not excessive.

Prison Medical Officers (Rents)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that about 150 prison medical officers who occupy Government-owned houses are having

their rent put up under the provisions of the Rent Act, 1957, to two or three times the original amount; and what steps lie proposes to take by way of compensation.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The increase pro- posed affects 33 prison medical officers. It arises from the general decision that rents for Government-owned quarters should be related as closely as possible to those charged by private landlords. The matter is at present under discussion with the staff association concerned.

Mr. Janner: Owing to this very serious attack on the housing of the people as a whole and in consequence of the Government's action which has placed these people in this unfortunate position, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Home Office ought to ensure that the salaries are supplemented so that they can meet the increase in rents?

Mr. Butler: I do not accept the whole of the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of Government policy and attitude; apart from that, I will try to do my best for these officers.

Prisoners (Petitions)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the normal time taken in dealing with petitions from prisoners; and to what extent the procedure can be accelerated.

Mr. Renton: The time taken to deal with a prisoner's petition varies considerably according to its nature and the number of inquiries which have to be made. My right hon. Friend is considering at present whether the disposal of petitions can be accelerated.

Mr. Hynd: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a prisoner is not allowed to write to his Member of Parliament while his petition is in the hands of the Home Office? As it takes a very long time to deal with some petitions, a prisoner may well have served the greater part of the sentence before he receives a reply. Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman look at that aspect?

Mr. Renton: I will consider that.

Crimes of Violence

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the final report of


the Department of Criminal Science at Cambridge on the study of crimes of violence in the Metropolitan Police area.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend hopes to receive the first section of the report during the summer and later sections as they are completed. I understand that it may not be possible for the whole report to be completed until early next year.

Mr. Pannell: Does not my hon. and learned Friend recall the answer given by his right hon. Friend to me in July of last year, when he said that this report was expected in the first half of 1959? Why is there such an extraordinary delay over such an important matter while these crimes of violence are increasing every year without any check?

Mr. Renton: The Department of Criminal Science at Cambridge has had a number of extra tasks placed upon it, mainly in connection with the Ingle by Committee and the establishment of a new institute of criminology. I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that there is a vast amount of research and study needed in this matter and that this job is worth doing thoroughly and well. If we try to rush it the results may not be quite so helpful.

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of crimes of violence against the person known to the police during the six-month period ended 31st March, 1959, compared with the six months ended 31st March, 1948, and the six months ended 31st March, 1938.

Mr. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes of violence were known to the police in 1958, and for each of the preceding six years, respectively.

Mr. Renton: I regret that figures for the first three months of 1959 and for parts of the years 1938 and 1948 are not available. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the number of crimes of violence known to the police in England and Wales in 1938 and in each of the seven years 1952–58.

Mr. Pannell: In view of the great increase in crimes of violence between 1948 and 1958, as disclosed in a Written

Answer to a Question which I asked earlier this week, and also in view of the fact that there is an increase in crimes of violence for which corporal punishment was formerly applicable—contrary to what has happened up to quite recently—will my hon. and learned Friend consult his right hon. Friend on the question of reintroducing corporal punishment for certain crimes of violence?

Mr. Renton: There is no evidence that flogging or birching were in the past or would be in the future a deterrent for the limited number of crimes of violence for which they were awarded. Flogging and birching have no reformative value at all. Although crimes of violence have increased considerably, the number of offences for which flogging and birching were awarded in the past has not increased disproportionately.

Mr. Pannell: That is not so.

Mr. Osborne: Whatever the figures may be, is my hon. and learned Friend and his right hon. Friend aware that women, especially in the rural areas where these crimes of violence often occur, feel that some sterner punishment should be meted out to men who are criminals? Is he aware that there is a general feeling in the country that he and his Department are far too soft about this matter and that people want something done? [HON. MEMBERS: R ubbish."1It is not rubbish.

Mr. Renton: We must apply our minds rationally to the deterrent and the reformative value of the various kinds of sentences which can be awarded.

Dame Florence Horsbrugh: Is my hon. and learned Friend quite sure that we are being rational and are applying our minds rationally if we discard altogether the idea of any corporal punishment for these crimes which are alarming and annoying the people?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that flogging and birching have not been practised in Scotland for over 100 years, and will he refer those hon. Members who think it is a solution to a study of the law of Scotland?

Mr. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I permitted to point out that the reply of my hon. and learned


Friend is in conflict with the reply published in the OFFICIAL REPORT oil Monday?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It might be a point for debate were there a Question before the House.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he has the full support of hon. Members on this side of the House for the position he has adopted in his reply to his hon. Friends?

Mr. Osborne: In view of the fact that in my constituency two little girls have been brutally murdered in the last eight weeks, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Following is the table:


Indictable offences of violence against the person known to the police in England and Wales


1938
2,721



1952
6,997



1953
7,083



1954
7,506



1955
7,884



1956
9,307



1957
10,960



1958
12,137
(provisional)

Sloan Square Underground Station (Incidents)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions by the Metropolitan Police are pending arising out of the incidents, investigated by them, which involved approximately 200 young men and women at Sloane Square Underground station on Thursday, 19th March.

Mr. Renton: The Metropolitan Police were not concerned.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the Minister aware that I read in the Press that 15 constables and a sergeant tried to eject these people? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it causes great embarrassment and inconvenience to the law-minded traveling public if people behave on trains in this hooligan manner? Does not the Minister think they should be restricted?

Mr. Renton: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has quite appreciated that on London Transport property the Metropolitan Police do not patrol the premises and do not intervene in incidents unless

they are called in; and they were not called in on this occasion.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that London Transport has allowed incidents to occur concerning the welfare of its passengers without making any protest or representation to the Metropolitan Police?

Mr. Renton: London Transport Executive has its own police, the British Transport Commission police, and did not call in the Metropolitan Police on this occasion.

Criminals (Repatriation)

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in his consultations with Commonwealth and colonial countries regarding the deportation of immigrants from such countries convicted of serious crimes.

Mr. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make a statement on his negotiations with the Commonwealth Governments regarding the deportation of all Commonwealth citizens, irrespective of race, colour or creed, who are convicted of criminal offences in this country.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I regret that I am not in a position to add to the reply which I gave on 26th February to the Question on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Pannell: In view of the further increase in the crime of living on immoral earnings, convictions for which were 136 in the Metropolitan Police area in 1958 compared with 130 for the previous year, and of the continued rise in the number of colonial immigrants who were responsible for 77 out of the 136 in 1958, does not my right hon. Friend think he can do something to accelerate these discussions. Which many of us think are quite unnecessary?

Mr. Butler: I understand my hon. Friend to say that the discussions—by which, I presume, he means those with overseas Governments—are unnecessary. In my opinion, they are necessary. It is important that consultations with the Governments concerned should take


place. I am sorry that they are not quicker. There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. We have not full information from overseas Governments, but owing to the spirit in which we run our British family of nations I would rather give an opportunity to those Governments to express their view before we took our final decision.

Mr. Osborne: What possible objection can there be to sending these proved criminals home—unless my right hon. Friend wants to put them on the Front Opposition Bench?

Mr. Butler: I would simply say that the only objection is that we should be taking a step contrary to the whole tradition and experience of this nation if we took this action against nationals from the British Commonwealth and Colonial Territories. It would be a complete and absolute novelty in our tradition. I do not preclude it; I have made statements saying there are advantages in it. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that it would be a complete novelty.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the point of view which has been expressed from behind him today was wholly rejected by the Standing Committee which was recently discussing the matter? Is he also aware that his view that there should be the fullest consultation with Commonwealth and Colonial Territories has the entire support of the Opposition?

Mr. Short: On a point of order. Is there not a rule, Mr. Speaker, against anything unparliamentarily being said, not only about an individual but about a small and clearly defined group? If so, was the remark of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) about the Front Opposition Bench in order?

Mr. Speaker: I did not take the observation seriously. I thought it was intended as a joke, but whether it is a joke or not depends upon one's sense of humor.

British Refugees (Egypt)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British refugees from Egypt still await resettlement.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): Two hundred and seventy-nine persons at present wholly or partially maintained by the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board have not yet been resettled.

Mr. Lipton: While I welcome the reduction since December, when there were 425 people awaiting resettlement, can the Under-Secretary of State give an assurance that this sad problem will be disposed of within the next few months?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Board is doing its utmost to settle the small remaining number. Obviously, these are vhe most difficult refugees to be resettled. When one considers that the Board has had more than 6,000 cases through its hands, it is clear that it has done an extremely fine job in getting so many refugees resettled.

Crime

Captain Pilkington: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the trend of crime during 1958 and the extra measures being taken to combat it.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Provisional figures for England and Wales for 1958 show a continued increase in crime. The total number of indictable offences known to the police was 626,509, an increase of 14.8 per cent compared with 1957. Offences of breaking and entering increased by 25 per cent to 131,132; of larceny by 13 per cent. to 409,388; of violence against the person by 11 per cent. to 12,137; and of robbery by 29 per cent. to 1,692. Sexual offences decreased by 5 per cent. to 17,691. Statistics of persons found guilty of indictable offences are not yet available for the whole of 1958, but the figures for the first three-quarters of the year show that the increase is greatest among young people aged from upwards of 14 to about 21. The White Paper on Penal Practice in a Changing Society indicated what has been and is being done to examine and develop the means of combating crime.

Captain Pilkington: Has the Home Office made any real analysis of the reasons for these distressing figures, which are a growing blot upon our civilization?

Mr. Butler: There have been previous crime waves. One was in 1952, which eventually subsided, and we very much trust that this one will do so also. I have done my best to consult all the other bodies concerned—churches, voluntary societies, schools and everybody else—and we must do our best to get into our young people's minds the right ideas about proper behavior. It may be a hard job, and into that job may go deterrents and firmness of action.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep concern caused by the figures? Does he remember that when he was at the Ministry of Education he encouraged local authorities to make provision for a Youth Service? Does he not agree that this Service has been starved of opportunities for service, and will he look at this matter, especially to see whether there is any positive contribution that we can make?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, and it is because of that that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has appointed an inquiry into the Youth Service in order to be satisfied that the upwards of £3 million spent on it has been well spent. While not wishing to pledge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am convinced that this is a matter of great importance to the Government and to the country.

Attilio Messina

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Attilio Messina, sentenced to prison for four years for living on the earnings of prostitution, has been living in this country for 25 years as an Italian citizen; and why this man was not deported, following his conviction at Bow Street in 1951.

Mr. R. A. Butler: This man came here in 1934 with a British passport which was withdrawn in 1952 when it was discovered that he was not entitled to British nationality. A deportation order was made against him at that time, but proved unenforceable because the Italian Government did not then recognize him as an Italian national. I understand that they are now prepared to do so, and I am giving urgent consideration to the question of his deportation.

Dr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite what he said, I for one am somewhat disturbed? On the one hand, for reasons which one entirely respects, he forbids access to the country to innocuous persons like Mr. Slavko Sank—concerning whom I have written to my right hon. Friend—who wished to pay a short visit to his brother in Carlisle, while, on the other hand, more noxious citizens of the character of the man named in the Question stay with us for so long? Can my right hon. Friend give a further assurance that the nationality of this man and his brothers is entirely cleared up?

Mr. Butler: I admire the ingenuity of my hon. Friend in bringing in what amounts to an extra Question to those permitted on the Order Paper to hon. Members by putting to me a point, to which, of course, I will give my attention, while bringing it to the attention of any future Committee on Procedure. This question is a very serious one. This man's brother, Carmelo, has been deported to Italy and the man himself has just been sentenced to a considerable sentence of long duration.
The question arises of the attitude of the Home Office towards a man sentenced to a long sentence and to whom the Italian Government are now prepared to grant a passport. It is to this aspect of the case, which has not come up in quite this way before, namely, that of a man sentenced to a long sentence and whom I am in a position to be able to deport, that I wish to give a little more attention, in the light of the precedents already created.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me at least, whatever other hon. Members may think, that he will exercise very great wisdom if, instead of maintaining this notorious criminal at public expense, he gets rid of him at once?

Mr. Butler: I am not at all surprised to hear that reaction in the British Parliament. That sort of thing I shall consider, also.

Suicide (Law)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the Joint Committee of the


British Medical Association and the Magistrates' Association on the law of suicide; and if he has any decision to announce on the question of amending legislation.

Mr. R. A. Butler: A helpful meeting between officials of my Department and of the Ministry of Health and representatives of the Joint Committee of the British Medical Association and the Magistrates' Association took place last month. The meeting explored the crucial problem of ensuring that persons who attempt to commit suicide receive treatment for their mental, as well as their physical, condition. The existing law does ensure this, although f recognize that it has unsatisfactory features, and before we change it I want to be satisfied that there are workable alternatives. I am not in a position to say when it would be possible to legislate.

Mr. Robinson: As the Home Secretary will be aware that these investigations have been going on for more than a year now, can he give any indication when he might be able to reach finality in this rather important matter?

Mr. Butler: I sympathies with the desire to reach finality, but I do not think it will be possible to do so in this Session, although I think it will be possible to make further progress on the lines I am following.

Monkeys

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inquire into the conditions under which monkeys imported into Great Britain are kept pending dispatch to laboratories engaged in the production of vaccines.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that conditions are not satisfactory. It is an offence under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, to cause, or permit to be caused, any unnecessary suffering to a domestic or captive animal by ill-treating or neglecting it; and 1 am sure that those responsible for enforcing the Act will at once investigate any such allegation.

Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Lady aware that distressing accounts have appeared showing a very heavy death rate suffered

by these monkeys when they are sent from London Airport to monkey farms? Will she examine a case in which 927 animals died in the period of three months at one of these places? If those circumstances are verified, will she see that necessary action is taken to avoid this needless suffering in what is a large traffic?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member refers to a large traffic, but he will be aware of the incalculable value of these animals in the vaccines produced. I can assure him that these farms have been visited both by the police and the R.S.P.C.A. and that no grounds have been found for the institution of proceedings. I understand the monkeys are well looked after in good, hygienic conditions and are visited three times a week by a qualified veterinary surgeon. It is, however, not unnatural, in view of the change from a tropical climate, that there are a certain number of deaths.

Sexual Offences

Mr. Fitch: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the recommendation contained in paragraph 126 of the Wolfenden Report; and, in view of the confusion caused by the overlapping of Clause 13 of the Sexual Offences Act, 1956, and certain local byelaws relating to acts of indecency and in order to remove doubt on the matter, if he will introduce legislation to clarify the existing law.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend indicated in the debate on the Wolfenden Report on 26th November last that the Government did not consider that they would be justified at present in introducing legislation to implement the recommendation in Part 2 of the Committee's Report. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to introduce separate legislation to deal with this particular point.

Mr. Fitch: Would the Joint Under-Secretary agree that it appears to be a matter of chance whether a man is charged under a local government byelaw with a maximum penalty of £5 or under the Sexual Offences Act with a maximum penalty of two years? In view of this disparity, surely some legislation is needed.

Mr. Renton: Yes, as the Wolfenden Committee said, the position is not entirely satisfactory, but it is not a point we think necessary to cover urgently by a special Bill.

Elections (Form R.P.F.7)

Mr. Short: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent under his regulations divisional political parties are entitled to delete the address of the electoral registration officer on form R.P.F.7 (Application to be treated as an absent voter for an indefinite period) which are distributed by them and substitute their own addresses so that the cards, when completed, are conveyed back to them free of charge by the Post Office.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Representation of the People Regulations, 1950, contain no provisions bearing on this matter. I have had no previous representations or information about the alleged practice. I will consider any evidence the hon. Member may wish to bring to my notice.

Mr. Short: Is the Home Secretary aware that Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central, Conservative Association has sent out hundreds of these cards, one of which I hold in my hand, each with a letter inviting the recipient to complete and return the card, which means that it would be returned at public expense? Is not this another example of the Conservative Party's belief that it has a divine right to bend or ignore the rules to suit its own convenience? What will the right hon. Gentleman do about this particular case?

Mr. Butler: I should want to examine it in relation to the law, in relation to Post Office Regulations and other matters. If the hon. Member will bring it immediately to my attention I shall immediately give him a report.

Mr. J. Griffiths: If documents of this kind, published at public expense, bearing an official address, are defaced by some organization or person, is not that a breach of the law?

Mr. Butler: At first sight I cannot give an answer to that question. I am not absolutely certain that it is a breach of the law, but I have a card here and I can see exactly what would happen if the words "Electoral Registration Officer" were defaced and the official

paid postmark were used. It is that that I want to investigate on receipt of the information from the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short).

Hanging

Mr. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the increase in the number of murders, he will introduce legislation at once restoring hanging as a punishment for such crimes committed on women, children, and old people.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The number of homicides fluctuates from month to month and from year to year, and while not underestimating the repugnance at these crimes I do not think that any significant increase is occurring. The monthly average of offences originally recorded by the police as murder in the six months September, 1958—February, 1959, was 141 compared with a monthly average of 142 for the five years 195256. I therefore cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Osborne: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that a little girl of 12[HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."] It is not " Oh " to my people; they do not think it funny—has been violated and murdered and that only eight weeks earlier another child of 8 was murdered in similar circumstances? Does my right hon. Friend realize that mothers of children like that feel that hanging is too good for men who commit such crimes and that my right hon. Friend is expected to do something about it, no matter what the " softies " opposite may feel?

Mr. Butler: I know a great deal about this. first, because of personal reports made to me from Lincolnshire, and, secondly, because my hon. Friend came to me and gave me a full account yesterday. Of course. I am utterly disgusted by these crimes just as much as my hon. Friend, but to say that this House can reform the law relating to homicide in this Session and go through all we did to reach compromise in this Act is not, in my view, practical politics.

SOMERIES HOUSE SITE, REGENT'S PARK

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has approved the proposal of the Crown Estate Commissioners


to allow the Royal College of Physicians to erect a new building on the site of Someries House, Regent's Park; and to what extent this development implies the abandonment of the plan, supported by both the Gorell Committee and the Committee to consider a new Queen's Hall, to build a music centre in Regent's Park.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I approve generally the proposals for Regent's Park recently published by the Crown Estate Commissioners, including the proposed use of the Someries House site. The plan to build a music centre in Regent's Park falls within the scope of the Arts Council's survey of cultural building needs, and I must ask the hon. Member to await the early publication of that Council's report.

Mr. Robinson: Does not the proposal of the Crown Estate Commissioners very much prejudice the future scheme, which is imaginative and received the support of two Government Committees and would be of great benefit to London particularly North London?

Mr. Butler: I agree that in accepting the alternative occupancy of this site at Someries House the Commissioners have to that extent prejudiced the building of a music centre there, but I do not think that we should necessarily regard the matter as concluded. I think that we should at any rate await the Art Council's survey before making a final decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Farm Leases, Ashington

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he received a communication expressing the anxiety of farmers and farm-workers concerning the lease of farms in Ashington, Northumberland; what reply he has sent; and whether he will make a statement.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): My right hon. Friend received a letter on 6th April from the District Organizer of the National Union of Agricultural Workers. He has replied saying that he has no power to intervene in this matter. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue it further, I would suggest that he should write to the

Chairman of the National Coal Board, by whom I understand the farms are owned.

Mr. Owen: Is the Minister aware that not only the agricultural workers but also farming interests in the area are seriously concerned at the decision taken by the N.C.B. to lease farms to a London syndicate with an American manager? They are necessarily worried as to what finally is to happen to the workers employed on those farms. Was not the N.C.B. prepared to give an opportunity to local farmers to lease farms from the Board?

Mr. Godber: I am not in a position to answer for the N.C.B., for reasons which I think the hon. Member well knows. I am, however, aware of the concern which he has voiced, and I well understand the feelings of those involved.

Reactor Cattle (Slaughtering)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) why it was necessary for his Department to arrange for the collection of reactor animals on Easter Sunday for slaughter that day in Camborne, Cornwall;
(2) what provision is made for notifying chief public health officers of the slaughter of reactor animals for which his Department is paying compensation under the Tuberculosis (Slaughter of Reactors) Order, 1956; and
(3) to what extent reactor animals for which compensation is paid are slaughtered on Sundays; and what provision is made to ensure that the carcasses of such animals are inspected before being sold for human consumption.

Mr. Godber: The day on which cattle which react to the tuberculin test are slaughtered is primarily a matter for the buyer and my Department did not arrange for reactor animals to be collected for slaughter in Camborne on Easter Sunday. I am unable to say how many reactor cattle are slaughtered on Sundays, but I am informed that this was the first occasion on record that such cattle had been slaughtered at Camborne on a Sunday.
My veterinary officers take all possible steps to see that reactor cattle in tuberculosis eradication areas are sent to slaughterhouses where an adequate meat


inspection service is maintained. Occupiers of slaughterhouses are required to notify local authorities of intention to slaughter animals for human consumption. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that the carcasses of the animals to which he refers were inspected.

Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that his statement will cause consternation in Camborne, because I have in my hand a notification from his veterinary officer asking for the farmer to co-operate in the collection of the animals on Easter Sunday? Is he aware that 18 bovine animals condemned by his Department were slaughtered on Easter Sunday and Easter Monday and that two whole carcasses had to he put aside as well as 192 lb. of meat from 14 others? Does he not consider it wrong when animals are condemned by his Department for which his Department pays compensation, that they should be slaughtered without the chief public health inspector being informed? Will he at least have that put right?

Mr. Godber: Naturally, in view of what the hon. Member has said I shall be grateful if he will let me have the document to which he has referred. I will then investigate the whole matter again. I assure him that these carcasses were examined and that from the point of view of public health the public were safeguarded.

East Sussex Executive Committee (Mr. J. Craig)

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what are the reasons for his refusal to reappoint Mr. J. Craig to the East Sussex County Agricultural Executive Committee;
(2) what reply he has made to the resolution of the East Sussex County Agricultural Executive Committee deploring his failure to reappoint Mr. J. Craig, who have given seventeen years of service as a member of that committee; and to what extent he consulted the committee before arriving at his decision.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend has already expressed his warm appreciation of Mr. Craig's long and valued service. It would, however, be quite improper for him to state his reasons for not reappointing a particular member of a county

agricultural executive committee or to indicate the action taken on the resolution of the East Sussex Committee. As the hon. Member must know, it has never been the practice to consult committees about their own membership.

Mr. Champion: While I understand the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's reluctance to give reasons, may I ask whether he does not appreciate that this is contrary to a promise given recently by the Minister that he would take these important committees into his consultation about matters of importance to the committees and to agriculture generally? Surely the membership of these committees is an important matter. It seems to me that this committee has been very hard done by as a result of the Minister's action.

Mr. Godber: I can assure the hon. Member that it is certainly not my right hon. Friend's intention to cast any slight or slur on individual members of the committee or the committee as a whole, but he will realize that it would not be possible to consult the Committee about its own membership. Apart from that, my right hon. Friend is very anxious to maintain the closest consultation with the committees, and he is doing all that he can in that connection.

Colonel Beamish: Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. John Craig is so well known and respected both as a man and as a farmer in Sussex and that his valued work on the committee is so well known that very few people in Sussex or the neighbouring counties would be likely to suppose that my right hon. Friend has any reason for not reappointing him to the committee other than the fact that he has already served on it with distinction for seventeen years?

Mr. Godber: I am very glad to have my hon. and gallant Friend's comments on that point. I can only endorse his words about Mr. Craig, who is extremely well known and very respected in the area.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

Constitution

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will give an assurance that


Her Majesty's Government do not recognize the right of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland to declare itself an independent State; and if he will pledge the Government now to make no concession of this sort in the 1960 negotiations.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): No provision exists in the constitution for the Federation or for any one of its component parts to declare itself independent. The pledges which the United Kingdom has given with regard to the future constitutional development of the Federation are set out in the preamble to the constitution in the Annex to Statutory Instrument 1199 of 1953.

Mr. Stonehouse: While thanking the Under-Secretary of State for that assurance, may I ask whether any representations have been made to the Federal Prime Minister following his statement in the last week or so to the effect that in certain circumstances he would be prepared to " go it alone " and to declare the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland an independent State? Will he give an undertaking that on no account will the Federation be allowed to become independent until the majority of the inhabitants of that part of the territories for which this Parliament is responsible have an opportunity of stating their views about it?

Mr. Alport: I have referred to the pledges which have been given in the Preamble to the Constitution and which set out in carefully drafted words the point which I think the hon. Member was attempting to make in the last part of his supplementary question. Replying to the first part of his supplementary question, it does not seem appropriate at the present time that any point should be made about any statement made in Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Wall: Is it not true that the pledges referred to have been reaffirmed on numerous occasions by Ministers in the House, and is it not equally true that no relevant considerations will be omitted from the 1960 constitutional discussions?

Mr. Alport: Perfectly true.

Discussions

Mr. Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of state for Commonwealth Relations what conclusions were reached in the recent official discussions between the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Nyasaland and the Rhodesias.

Mr. Wade: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will now make a statement on the official discussions between the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Nyasaland and Rhodesia.

Mr. Alport: My noble Friend was glad to take the opportunity of the Easter Recess to visit Salisbury for informal discussions with the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and also the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. A useful exchange of views took place.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the practical certainty that there will be another Government on the opposite benches by October, 1960, is it not very desirable that these discussions should not be of a private nature and that the public should know what is their nature and any undertakings given?

Mr. Alport: It would not be right for me to comment on the purely hypothetical consideration which the hon. Member put forward.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Member aware that there is considerable concern throughout the Scottish Church about the rather indifferent way in which the Colonial Secretary has treated the evidence which has been received from the missionaries in Nyasaland? When he was out there did the Colonial Secretary take an opportunity to inform himself more accurately of what has been happening in Nyasaland?

Mr. Alport: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. His hon. Friend is referring to a visit by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to put his question to the Colonial Secretary in due course.

Mr. Bottomley: Can the Under-Secretary tell us whether there will be any report to the House as a result of the mission of the Secretary of State to the Federation? We ought to have some report.

Mr. Alport: My noble Friend said on his return that he wished to discuss the matter first with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues.

Mr. Boftomley: Are we to assume, then, that there is a conflict of opinion, that it is taking a long time to resolve and that when it has been resolved we shall have the report?

Mr. Alport: I think that both sides of the House agree that the whole problem of the future of the Federation of Central Africa is a very difficult one and that it would be proper, therefore, to give all the relevant consideration; due thought before any decisions are made.

Mr. Wade: Will the Under-Secretary ask his noble Friend to inform the Prime Minister of the Federation that much of the concern felt in this country about the demands or even suggestions that Dominion status should be granted in 1960 arises not from prejudice or bias against the white settlers in the Federation, but from the fact that Britain has a clear duty as trustee to the African inhabitants of the Protectorates and under no circumstances should consent or he a party to any breach of that trust?

Mr. Alport: The Prime Minister of the Federation appears to follow very closely the proceedings of this House. No doubt he will take note of what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Under-Secretary of State say whether the discussions between the Secretary of State and the two Prime Ministers were concerned with the 1960 Conference and any preliminaries which may lead up to it?

Mr. Alport: On his departure from this country my noble Friend said that the object of his visit was to discuss with Sir Roy Welensky and his Government the preliminaries to the 1960 constitutional review talks.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can we assume that when these discussions within the Government have been concluded a state-

ment will be made either by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State?

Mr. Alport: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that when it is proper for any announcement on this subject to be made that announcement will be made.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the hon. Gentleman give a definite assurance that no specific undertakings have been made as a result of this conference?

Mr. Alport: Discussions that take place between Commonwealth Prime Ministers are always confidential, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAN ISLAND

R.A.F. Staging Post

Mr. Rankin: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what progress has been made in reaching agreement with the Maldive Government for the building of a Royal Air Force staging post on Gan Island.

Mr. Alport: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on 13th April.

Mr. Rankin: I have read that Answer and also the Answer previously given. None of those replies brings the clarity to this confused situation which it deserves, particularly in view of the fact that the staging post will soon be in use. Could the hon. Member say that it is the case that a British warship is now cruising in the South part of the Indian Ocean and that that cruises is not incidental to the dispute but is merely part of normal duties? Could he further say—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is spinning this out a bit.

Mr. Rankin: Could he further say whether the appointment of Mr. Arthington-Davy, which has been announced, reflects any lack of confidence on the part of the Government in the former activities of Major Phillips?

Mr. Alport: I can deny straightaway that the appointment of Mr. Arthington Davy reflects any lack of confidence in the activities of Major Phillips. Indeed, I took occasion to pay tribute to the public service which Major Phillips had


rendered. His retirement is entirely at his own request. The hon. Member will have to put his question about the cruising of a warship in the Indian Ocean to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. The general position in respect of the Maldive Islands is quite clear. We are anxious to continue and to carry negotiations to a successful conclusion, satisfactory both to the Maldivian Government and to ourselves.

Mr. Bottomley: What has happened to the invitation to the Maldivian Government to send a delegation to this country?

Mr. Alport: The Government of the Maldive Islands are still considering their answer at Male.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

European Common Market

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will convene a Commonwealth Conference at an early date to examine ways and means by which Great Britain and the other Commonwealth countries may be brought into association with the European Common Market.

Mr. Alport: Developments in connection with the European Common Market are kept continuously under review by all Commonwealth Governments, through the normal machinery of Commonwealth economic consultation.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that I put down this Question to the Prime Minister because it deals with wider matters than Commonwealth relations? Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that a new start is required on this question of the Common Market and British relationships? Since our main excuse for not joining the Common Market has been our Commonwealth commitments, does he not consider that a gesture of this kind, which would show to the world that the British Commonwealth is concerned about it, would be worth while?

Mr. Alport: The Paymaster-General pointed out to the House on 12th February the very real difficulties there would

be in bringing the members of the Commonwealth into association with the Common Market. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue this point, it would be right that he should pursue it with my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General.

Constitutional Changes (Consultation)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if Her Majesty's Government will consult with State members of the Commonwealth in Australasia, Asia and Africa when constitutional changes of territories in these respective continents are being considered.

Mr. Alport: No, Sir. These responsibilities belong to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Brockway: Will the Under-Secretary of State consider this proposal? Is he aware that in Africa, Asia and Australasia a great sense of unity is now being developed between territories in those Continents? Would it not be desirable that we should discuss with fellow members of the Commonwealth any changes taking place in those areas?

Mr. Alport: The United Kingdom Government and the people of the United Kingdom cannot divest themselves of these responsibilities in that way. If the hon. Gentleman thinks further about this proposition, he will see the many difficulties which it would produce.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Army Officers (Pakistan)

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what guarantees were given by Her Majesty's Government to former officers of the Indian Army who volunteered to serve in Pakistan after the transfer of power, in respect of arrears of pay and repayment of tax where revised income tax assessments had recently been made; and whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to a number of these former Indian Army officers who are still unable to reach a satisfactory settlement with the Pakistani Government.

Mr. Alport: I presume that my hon. Friend refers to those officers who. while


servng in Pakistan, drew concurrently duty pay and leave pending retirement pay, the latter being subsequently reassessed for the purpose of Pakistan income tax. The incidence of Pakistan income tax is, naturally, a matter for the Government of Pakistan and no guarantees by Her Majesty's Government were given with regard to it or in respect of any form of pay.
With regard to the second part of the Question, I am informed that special efforts are being made to settle any outstanding cases of reassessment and to arrange far the repayment of any refunds which might as a result become due.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Is my hon. Friend aware that these officers received a specific guarantee from the then British Government that all outstanding emoluments would be paid? Is he further aware that the delays in settling these cases as between the officers concerned and the Pakistani Government have been running in some cases for nearly ten years? These delays inevitably cause a great deal of ill feeling on the part of the officers.

Mr. Alport: I sympathies fully with the difficulties with which the officers have been faced, but the delay is not a matter for which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are responsible. I will undertake to my hon. Friend that any assistance that we can give in speeding up the eventual payments of these arrears will be given through our High Commissioner in Karachi.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND

Legislative Council

Mr. Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will now report on developments in Bechuanaland towards the establishment of a legislative council.

Mr. Alport: As I said in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 19th February, my noble Friend hopes to reply to a resolution of the Joint Advisory Council for the Bechuanaland Protectorate at its next meeting, which is expected to open next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

School, Carlisle (Petition)

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Education whether he has received the petition signed by 5,698 people urging the replacement of the existing building of Saint Bede's Roman Catholic Primary School, Carlisle, by a new school on the site already approved; and whether, in the light of the representations made to him by the Carlisle City Council, he will now give his approval for the inclusion of this work in the 196061 major building programme.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Yes, Sir. I am giving most serious consideration to this petition, and I will give a decision as soon as I can.

Road Safety

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Education what arrangements he has made for road safety precautions to be taught in schools.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Instruction in road safety is now a normal part of the school curriculum. My Department already assists this work in many ways, and I am now arranging for a special chapter on road safety to be included in the new edition of the pamphlet "Safety Precautions in Schools".

Captain Pilkington: Although I believe that there have been improvements, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is still wide room for even more improvements? Is he certain that this instruction is being given thoroughly and efficiently?

Mr. Lloyd: Her Majesty's inspectors keep a careful eye on this work.

Public Library Service

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the objections of the mayors of Hereford, Salisbury, Maidenhead and Winchester to the recommendations contained in the Roberts Report on the Public Library Service, regarding non-county boroughs; whether he has yet completed his discussions with interested parties on the recommendations contained in the Report; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Yes, Sir. I know about these objections, but I have not completed my discussions and cannot therefore make a statement now.

Mr. McKay: Is the Minister aware that Wallsend is very proud indeed of its library and other organizations within the area? Is he aware of the very strong feeling of resentment about the Roberts Report? Will he give all these non-county boroughs every opportunity to express their view points on this subject?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Budget Proposals (Surtax Payers)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount and proportion of Income Tax relief in his Budget which will accrue to the benefit of surtax payers.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): About £40 million in a full year, or 24 per cent of the total relief going to individuals.

Mr. Swingler: Is it now clearly admit ed by the Chancellor that the way in which he chose to reduce Income Tax, namely, solely by cutting the standard rate, gave maximum and disproportionate benefit to the top people in the super tax class, whereas if some of the money had been used to increase allowances he would have given a larger and fairer proportion of the benefits to those who need money?

Mr. Erroll: Surtax payers carry 35 per cent of the total burden, so they are getting less than their proportionate share of the total relief.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC ENERGY (VEALE COMMITTEE)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Prime Minister when the Committee appointed by the Atomic Energy Authority to consider the need for training facilities in the whole field of radiological health and safety is expected to make its report.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 14th April to

the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens).

Mrs. Butler: Can the Prime Minister say whether the Committee will be making an interim report on training for workers in public health services? Is he aware that an increasing number of medical officers feel that, however extensive the literature available, there is no substitute for a proper course of training to meet their problems and that such a course should now be available for themselves and for their staffs?

The Prime Minister: The terms of reference cover a very wide range of work and deal with a new and rapidly-developing subject. In the circumstances, I think that it is better to wait for the final Report.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 20TH APRIL—Supply [10th Allotted Day]: Committee.
It is proposed to take Supply formally, and then debate the Opposition Motion, which is already on the Order Paper, relating to Retirement Pensions.
TUESDAY, 21sT APRIL—Committee and and remaining stages of the Income Tax (Repayment of Post-War Credits) Bill.
Report and Third Reading of the Wages Councils (Amendment) Bill [Lords](changed to " Terms and Conditions of Employment Bill [Lords]").
Committee stage of the Highways Bill [Lords].
Second Reading of the Post Office Works Bill [Lords] and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Consideration of the Purchase Tax (No. 1) Order relating to television sets.
WEDNESDAY, 22ND APRIL—Report and Third Reading of the Street Offences Bill.
THURSDAY, 23RD APRIL—Debate cm Welsh Affairs.
The debate will arise on a Government Motion to take note of the Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales and Monmouth shire for the period 1st July, 1957, to 31st December, 1958. (Cmnd. 684).
FRIDAY, 24TH APRIL—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
The House will wish to know that the Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry on the allegation of assault on John Waters, together with the evidence given before the Tribunal, is available now in the Vote Office.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Lord Privy Seal has announced a very long list of Measures to be considered on Tuesday. Can he give an assurance that if it does not appear to be possible to get through all the business, it is not the intention of the Government to keep the House until a very late hour? Would he also give an assurance that the Third Reading of the Street Offences Bill will, equally, not be taken at a very late hour on Wednesday, as it is a matter of great interest to many hon. Members?
Further, will the Government find time, before the Foreign Ministers' conference, for a debate on foreign affairs, because even if the Government, as appears to be the case, are unwilling to say anything at all about their plans, it is desirable that they should hear from the House what the House thinks about the whole situation?

Mr. Butler: I will consult my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about a foreign affairs debate. Whether the business for Tuesday—much of which comes from another place—finishes at a comparatively early hour will, I feel sure, depend upon the sweet and friendly co-operation of the Opposition, but I will bear the point in mind.
As to the Street Offences Bill, I feel, equally, that it is worth our envisaging a Third Reading that evening. I do not think that we want to keep the House unduly late, but I should like the Third Reading to remain on the business, so that we can attempt to get the Bill if we can.

Mr. Woodburn: The Leader of the House has said that the Report on the Waters case is now available. Can he say whether any Government action will be involved and, if so, whether the Government have decided on that action?

Mr. Butler: I think that it would be much better for hon. Members to read the Report before I give any answer on behalf of my right hon. Friends as to future action upon it.

Mr. Short: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the Motion on the Order Paper referring to the replacement of the two " Queen " liners, which has been signed by all Tyneside Members—on this side of the House, at any rate? Will he say whether those hon. Members will have an opportunity to set forth their arguments in more detail in the near future?
[That this House, bearing in mind the skill and productive capacity of the shipyards of Tyneside and the steelworks of Durham, both of which are at present seriously under employed, expresses the view that Government assistance towards the replacement of the Queen liners should be conditional upon one liner being built in the North-East.]

Mr. Butler: I cannot foresee an immediate opportunity for a debate, but I have the Motion before me—which I continually study.

Mr. Stonehouse: Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity further to consider the Motion on the Order Paper, signed by 114 right hon. and hon. Members on this side, concerning discriminatory legislation in Southern Rhodesia? In view of the statement recently made by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, and the reintroduction of the Preventive Detention Bill there, will the Leader of the House give the House an early opportunity to discuss its responsibility in this matter?
[That this House regrets the discriminatory character of certain measures introduced into the Legislature of Southern Rhodesia by the Southern Rhodesian Government, namely, the Unlawful Organizations Bill and the Bill, presented on 17th March, 1959, to amend the Native Affairs Act; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to


exercise the powers vested in him in relation to such measures by Sections 28 and 30 of the Southern Rhodesian Constitution Letters Patent, 1923, to prevent such measures coining into effect until all provisions of such measures which unfairly discriminate against African citizens of Southern Rhodesia are removed.]

Mr. Butler: I do not see an opportunity to consider, at the moment, what is relevant to the British Parliament in these matters, but I will note what the hon. Member has said.

Dame Irene Ward: Following my right hon. Friend's statement on the Motion about the replacement of the " Queens may I ask him whether, before any decisions are taken, there will be an opportunity for discussion, as a number of principles are involved? Will he also hear in mind that I am delighted that the Opposition have followed my lead in suggesting that one of the " Queens " should be built on Tyneside?

Mr. Butler: I feel that what the hon. Lady thinks today, hon. Members opposite think tomorrow. I cannot give any undertaking as to the exact nature of any discussion but, as a very important decision is involved, if hon. Members wish to make their point of view known they should certainly take the opportunity of doing so—and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward).

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Committee stage of the Baking Industry (Small Establishments and Seasonal Resorts) Bill has been put down for Wednesday, and that the Government have announced their intention to introduce Amendments

that would greatly increase the Bill's scope and would, in fact, virtually repeal one of their own Acts? In view of the important and controversial matters raised, will he not see to it that the Committee stage is postponed until further consideration can be given to them?

Mr. Butler: It is a matter for the private Member concerned. I do not think that we can take responsibility for it.

Mr. Brockway: What the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) was not very clearly heard on these benches. If he said that he was considering the relevance of the Motion on the Order Paper, will he bear in mind the speech delivered yesterday by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia? Is it not desirable that this House should have an opportunity of declaring its continued responsibility for the welfare of the African population in Southern Rhodesia?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that the hon. Member himself, or many other hon. Members interested, have been at all backward in expressing their point of view on the matter. My only anxiety is that I do not see an immediate opportunity for debating the specific Motion referred to by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to postpone the coming into force of new valuation lists under Part III of the Local Government Act, 1948, and to restrict proposals for altering the current lists, and to postpone the date as from which relief under section eight of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, can be terminated or reduced, it is expedient to authorize the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalization Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1. — (POSTPONEMENT OF NEW VALUATION LISTS, AND RESTRICTION ON PROPOSALS FOR ALTERING CURRENT LISTS.)

3.38 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): It will probably be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss with the first Amendment, in page 1, line 16, to leave out subsection (3), that in line 18, to leave out from " proposal" to the end of the Clause and to add:
served on the valuation officer after the twelfth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine, for altering a valuation list in force at the passing of this Act (not being a proposal made by the valuation officer) shall have effect only where the assessment resulting from the said proposal is not excessive, incorrect or unfair in relation to the values ascribed in the list to other hereditaments of the same class at the date of the proposal
and that in page 2, line 9, at the end to add:
or unless it is a proposal made in respect of a hereditament the rate able value of which has been altered in consequence of structural alterations or is unfair in relation to other hereditaments of the same class in the list at the date of the proposal".

Mr, G. R. Mitchison: That would suit us very well, Sir Gordon.
I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out subsection (3).
This Amendment deals with a short but important point, and I hope that we may be able to get through with it reasonably rapidly, though I am well aware that a number of my hon. Friends wish to speak in support of it. Subsection (3) removes from local rating authorities, with certain exceptions, the power to make proposals for the alteration of the list, and that removal is to operate for five years.
When this matter was mentioned on Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had a precedent in the matter because the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, contained similar provisions. The difference, of course, is that in that case the provisions were to operate only for about a year—actually, having regard to the machinery, for about nine months—and in this case the right is being removed for about five years.
This is a very serious matter for the local authorities, and one wonders why it has been thought necessary to make the provision. The right hon. Gentleman intimated on Second Reading that his reason was that there might be proposals which might develop into a partial revaluation in some areas.
There have been questions of this sort before. Some years ago, the Liverpool Corporation employed a valuer and, no doubt on the strength of his valuation, made certain proposals which covered a considerable section of the city, so I understand. The question arose, in the form of proceedings in the High Court whether the corporation was justified in employing the valuer. In delivering the judgment of the court, Lord Goddard said something which seems to me to bear directly on the object of the Amendments:
It seems to me that the case for the council can be put as high as this. The council are under a duty—I do not say a positive duty, but they are under a duty—as the council interested in the fair and proper rating of the city of Liverpool. They are under a duty also as ratepayers themselves, and they are under a duty as the rating authority in Liverpool. If they think that an alteration of the valuation list is required, they are under a duty to see that a proposal for the alteration is made. It is not for them to make the alteration, because that is now left to the valuation officer. I think they are under a duty to make proposals to correct any inequalities or under-assessment of which they know.


Those were Lord Goddard's words, quoted at page 740 of the last edition of Ryde on Rating. If that is the duty of the corporation—and we must take it from the decision of the court that it is —it involves making proposals. Local authorities are now to be deprived of the power to make them. That is a very serious step. Let us see what will happen.
There will be cases where the valuation officer does not make any proposal at all and the owner or occupier, who remains entitled to make a proposal, does not make any proposal either. In those cases, the local authority may be of opinion that an alteration should be made. The local authority can, of course, make representations to the valuation officer, but he is under no duty to agree with them. Indeed, his duty is to make up his own mind. The local authority may be unable to raise the matter at all and may be unable to bring it before the local valuation court.
Yet again—this is a very common case —there may have been proposals made by the owner and an agreement may have been reached between the valuation officer and the owner, there being, in the result, no case to go before the local valuation court and no right in the local authority to do more than make representations to the valuation officer if it is deprived of the right of making a proposal itself.
There is a third type of case I wish to mention. Let us suppose that the valuation officer and the owner do not agree. The valuation officer says £100 and the owner says £80. They go to the valuation court. The local authority will have the right to object and may say in the valuation court that the right figure is, let us say, £120. The difficulty in this type of case is a practical one. A local valuation court, like any other arbitration body, is only too apt to consider the cases of the two contestants before it and to pay little regard to a third party stepping in with a third suggestion which does not take the form of a proposal which it has to consider.
I suggest that, in this type of case, it would be very rare indeed for the local valuation court to disregard the views of the valuation officer and the owner and fix a figure which the local authority might think right, and which might be

right but which would be beyond anything which had been suggested by either of the two contestants. After all, the object of the local valuation court here is to act as the arbiter—in most cases the final arbiter—on the general question of the value of property.
3.45 p.m.
It is not surprising that this proposal has met with indignation and opposition from all the local authority associations and. I may add, from the London County Council. There have been meetings between the local authority associations and, I believe, the London County Council, on the one hand, and the Minister and his advisers in these matters, on the other. The point has been raised again that this would lead to a partial revaluation in some places, and the Minister has expressed his willingness to try to find some compromise which would avoid that.
But, at the end of what I understand were quite long discussions, all that resulted was that the Minister offered to make representations to the Treasury, whose servants the valuation officers are, that they should pay regard to representations from the local authorities. I have no doubt that a valuation officer would do that anyhow. No doubt, circulars or letters to that effect would make it even more certain that he would do so. It does not really meet the point.
The local authority has a duty to perform, the duty described by Lord Goddard in the passage I read as
a duty to make proposals to correct any inequalities or under-assessment of which they know".
That is not qualified in any way by the scope of the proposals. That case happened to be a case, I believe, in which the Liverpool Corporation was approaching the stage of, shall we say, a partial revaluation of the city. Of course, there are cases where that will arise. I understand that there has been a similar case in Sheffield, although I do not know the details.
I say without hesitation that the duty was correctly stated there in a case which did not involve a single property, but involved a fairly extensive valuation. It ought to be allowed to continue. There is no real reason for taking the right away. As it seems to me, what it comes to in the end is this. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared not so much to trust


local authorities as to allow local authorities to carry out their duties in this matter even if they do extend beyond a single instance of unfairness or anything of that sort?
The first Amendment on the Notice Paper, which is the one I myself prefer in this case, is to leave out subsection (3) as a whole. The rest of the subsection makes some exceptions which I need not go into for this purpose. It leaves untouched the point I have been taking. The second Amendment, in page 1, line 18, has a history. This is not the drafting of a Member of this House. Neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) drafted it. It is the drafting of the local authority associations and they are unanimously agreed on it, with the exception that the L.C.C. prefers the first Amendment.
The Amendment has been tabled in this form, because I think that in a matter of this sort it is right that a draft which has been prepared after consultations of this sort and has met with the unanimous approval of the local authority associations should go on the Notice Paper as it is. I appreciate that there is some vagueness about it. I do not believe that there would be any practical difficulty in working it, but it is open to a little objection on those grounds and I would rather that the whole subsection were taken out for that reason.
The third Amendment, on which no doubt the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) will have something to say, deals with a matter that I think the valuation officer would be sure to attend to, anyhow, namely, an alteration in rate able value in consequence of structural alterations. The hon. Member may say that there are cases in which a local authority may repair an inadvertent omission, possibly through lack of knowledge on the part of the valuation officer. That is a different point and it is not the point raised by the Amendment, which reads:
or is unfair in relation to other hereditaments of the same class in the list at the date of the proposal.
The first Amendment is, broadly, on the same lines as the second, although it is different in language and there might be a small difference in effect.
I am sure that in the majority of cases the valuation officer, owner and valuation

court between them, together with the local authority's right of objection, would settle the matter, but there will be a minority of cases—and no one can say how large it will be—where the local authority should be allowed to exercise what is its long-standing right to make proposals. It is in relation to those matters that I moved the Amendment.
I repeat that I do not accept the proposition that a local authority has not a duty to deal with the matter, because the area of the town which is intended to be affected by the proposals of the local authority may be quite considerable. It seems to me that that sort of question is pre-eminently one for local authorities. It would be utterly wrong as regards relations between Parliament or the Ministry and the local authorities that matters of that sort should be taken out of their jurisdiction. If Liverpool, Sheffield, or any other town comes to the conclusion that there is a substantial under valuation of a part of the town it is under the duty that Lord Goddard described to put it right by making proposals.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Like other Members on both sides of the Committee, I accept that it is a regrettable necessity that a Bill has been put forward postponing yet again the introduction of new valuation lists. My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear on Second Reading that this decision had not been taken lightly. I think that we are forced to the conclusion, as he said that postponement is inescapable. At the same time, it is generally accepted, I think, that a Bill of this kind should be strictly limited in its scope. It should do nothing in my view, and I hope that of other hon. Members, which is not absolutely essential to the achievement of its simple purpose of postponing new lists.
I would not go so far as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in saying that subsection (3) of Clause 1 should be omitted altogether, but I would support an Amendment which would limit the scope of the subsection. I am not satisfied that in its present form it is essential to securing the primary object of the Bill.
The Amendment which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), is in very similar terms to the


one which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren). My Amendment also has the full approval of the local authority associations. It is a question of seeking to find a formula which will enable the Minister to secure the object of preventing a small minority of local rating authorities from attempting to secure a partial and premature revaluation, while not unduly restricting the rights of the rating authorities.
During the Second Reading debate, on 23rd February, my right hon. Friend explained why subsection (3) has been put in the Bill. He said:
Subsection (3) is put in because, if there is to be a general postponement, a door ought not to be left open for attempts to secure partial revaluations. Subsection (3) debars anyone, other than the valuation office or owner or occupier concerned, from making any proposal for altering the current valuation list. It is exactly similar to the provision in section 2 (2) of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, with regard to the lists then in force. So we are not creating a precedent." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rdFebruary, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 820]
My own view is that it is irrelevant simply to have a precedent. The question is whether it is a good or bad precedent. I take the view that the provision in the 1955 Act was a bad precedent to apply in full and is unnecessary for the purpose of this Bill.
The case made by the local authority associations is summed up in representations which I have received from the Finance Committee of the Norwich City Council. The Town Clerk wrote to me as follows:
Whilst my Committee appreciate that the Minister has introduced this clause in order to prevent a rating authority securing a partial revaluation of properties within its area, they feel that the clause should be redrafted in such a way that where on merit there is justification for the rateable value of an individual hereditament being altered, the rating authority should be entitled to submit a proposal.
In spite of what the hon. and learned Member said, I think that most local authorities would be prepared to accept that position and would not go so far as to urge the elimination of the subsection altogether.

Mr. Mitchison: Hear, hear.

Mr. Rippon: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with that.
Rating authorities will still be able to make proposals to include properties not in the lists at all. That is mainly a question of challenging claims for total exemption from rating. But that is not the only special case with which rating authorities are concerned.
I was a little disturbed by some observations of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on Second Reading, when he said:
The provision in the Bill is limited to the period of current valuation lists, but if the obvious mistake is already in the list then the local authority has, after all, had three years since April, 1956, to take action about it." — [OFFiciAt. REPORT, 23rd February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 870.]
In my view, that is a fallacious argument and has no merit whatsoever. As my Amendment indicates, structural alterations may take place, or there may be a change of use which raises the question whether the hereditament is still occupied for industrial purposes and so liable to partial derating.
In a number of cases there has been a quite genuine difference of opinion between the rating authority and the valuation officer on whether a hereditament is industrial or not. It seems to me that where there are two sets of experts with a genuine difference of opinion that difference of opinion should be resolved by the courts. They should be able to go as of right to the valuation court and then, if necessary, to the Lands Tribunal.
4.0 p.m.
No doubt, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering suggested, if my right hon. Friend does not accept any Amendment at all he will feel able to take steps, whether by issuing a circular or otherwise, to ensure that valuation officers should be asked to pay particular attention to suggestions put forward by rating authorities for the assessment of certain properties. Perhaps he might go even further and urge valuation officers, when there is a genuine difference of opinion in an arguable case, to put forward proposals of their own so that the matter can be tested in court.
I would not, however, regard that as a satisfactory solution. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Kettering that it would put the valuation officer in a difficult position. If the valuation


officer does not accept the rating authority's suggestion, he should not have to put a proposal forward. That can be left to the rating authority. Rating authorities have acted responsibly in all these matters.
There have been only a few cases—Liverpool and Sheffield and, more recently, in Hertfordshire--in which there has been anything which could be described even remotely as a partial attempt at revaluation. In my view, that can be met without having a subsection as sweeping as this one. The purpose of the Amendments, apart from the first one moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, is to try to preserve as far as possible the rights of the rating authority while preventing these partial and premature attempts at revaluation.
My Amendment in page 2, line 9, and the further Amendment which has been put forward by the local authority associations do not involve any complicated new machinery. They would close the door which my right hon. Friend the Minister says ought to be closed. That is the only door which we ought to close.
I hope that if my right hon. Friend does not feel prepared to go further until he has considered this afternoon's debate, he will at least give careful consideration to trying to find a form of words that will meet the viewpoint of the rating authorities before the Bill is considered in another place.

Mr. A. E. Oram: I support particularly the Amendment to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 1 not only for the kind of reasons put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), but because of the effect of the subsection on a particular class of property, one which is of a special significance in the County Borough of East Ham, part of which I represent. In a sense, I am putting forward a special plea. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take note of the special problem I have in mind and that if he and the Committee do not see their way to accept the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman will think further upon this problem and consider bringing in an Amendment at a later stage in another place.
The class of property to which I am referring is that occupied by a public

body and rated on a profit basis. It is rated in that way because it is impossible to assess its annual rental because of the nature and extent of the undertaking, and there is no open market upon which an annual rental could be assessed. There are two examples in East Ham. The first is property of the Metropolitan Water Board and the second is property of the Port of London Authority.
In the case of the Metropolitan Water Board, I understand that it is defined as
mains and pipes in the parish".
It is not easy to conceive of an open market for such property. Similarly in the case of the property of the Port of London Authority, for which the definition is
part of the Royal Albert and King George V docks".
Here again, it is not easy to think of an open market annual rental value for such property. Therefore, the rateable value of such hereditaments is on a quite different basis from that which is generally under discussion in the Bill. That is to say, it is upon the annual profit of the undertakings concerned.
It has been the practice of the County Borough of East Ham to make annual proposals in respect of these properties, which represent an important part of rateable value in the borough. Because the annual accounts of these public bodies become available after 31st March— that is, after the end of the rate year—it has been necessary for the local authority to put in what is called a protective proposal to safeguard the position when the profitability of the undertaking comes to be known later in the year. I understand that if subsection (3) is passed unamended, the local authority would be prevented from making use of that kind of safeguard to which it has had resort in past years.
On the other hand, it would be possible for the occupier—the Port of London Authority or the Metropolitan Water Board—to claim a reduction in the assessment. Consequently, we would be faced with a one-sided arrangement in respect of property which, I submit, was not meant to be affected by the Bill. It would mean that the local authority would have to rely solely upon the judgment of the valuation officer.
I am given to understand that in the past, to avoid any duplication of proposals, there has been consultation between the valuation officer and the local authority in the submission of proposals. One hopes that that sort of consultation will continue. In the next few years, however, the position may well arise that the opinions of the East Ham Borough Council and of the valuation officer differ. In such a situation, if the Bill passes unamended, the local authority would be powerless in the matter.
I have figures, with which I shall not bother the Committee, which show two things. The first is that these two sets of property are of considerable significance to the local authority. In the case of the Metropolitan Water Board, they are in the range of £5,000 rateable value and in the case of the Port of London Authority, the figure extends up to £21,000. They are, therefore, considerable undertakings. The figures also show, however, that over the last five or six years, there have been considerable annual variations. It is upon these annual variations that the local authority has been able to put forward its own proposals and which it will be precluded from putting forward by the subsection which we seek to delete.
I would like to make two further points, similar to those made by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon). They relate to arguments in support of the subsection that were put forward on Second Reading. In the first place, the Minister said that it would not be right for a local authority to seek revaluation of some of its properties on a post-war basis while others were still on 1939 values. That argument bears no relation whatever to the problem to which I am calling attention, because the kind of properties which I have been describing are on an entirely different basis of assessment and are not affected by the new revaluation proposals.
The second point, which was made by the Parliamentary Secretary on Second Reading, to the effect that the local authority had already had three years in which to make corrections, obviously has no relation to the problem which I have attempted to describe. Therefore, I urge the Minister to have regard particularly to this special class of property.
The problem would be adequately met by the deletion of the subsection and I hope that that will be the solution to which the Minister will turn his mind. If, however, he fails to adopt that course, I hope, as I said earlier, that he will seek the opportunity at a later stage of putting right what could be a very serious piece of harm to the local rateable values of East Ham.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: I rise because the local authorities in my constituency, the Boroughs of Oldbury and Halesowen, are entirely in agreement with the views expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
Their main point of criticism is that their right under the Act of 1948 to propose changes in the current valuation list is to be taken away. I should have thought that as the local authorities agree with nine-tenths of the Bill and accept his plea for the Bill, the Minister, having regard to the rough passage that he has had during his term of office, would come down on the side of the local authorities and establish good will all round.
What do the local authorities want? They want merely the right to propose any change in the current valuation list that would enable them to deal with any minor anomaly of, say, inequality or undervaluation without in the slightest degree involving the danger with which the Minister seems to be exercised, and that is to introduce a revolution in the valuation lists into the locality if the right under the Act of 1948 is maintained.
The local authorities have readily accepted the Minister's plea that the Bill stems from the need for further time up to 1963, and that nothing else is involved in this, except the simple proposition to enable local authorities to have the right —and I should have thought at least they should have the right—to appeal against the proposals of the valuation officer, because I cannot think that anyone acting for the Inland Revenue could have the same point of view as a local authority.
For those reasons, I support the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend.

Dame Irene Ward: It is only right that I should voice the view of my local authority, the County Borough of Tynemouth. I have had a


letter from the Town Clerk, on behalf of the local authority, asking me to support the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
I find this a very complicated matter. I certainly would not be able myself to enter into any of the controversies, nor would I be able to assess, with any real knowledge, the differences which have arisen between the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
I think, however, that it is right, when we are discussing a matter of this kind in the House of Commons, that the views of my local authority should be known. I ask my right hon. Friend to accept the view of that local authority, which is a very responsible body, with a first-class record of local government. I wholeheartedly accept any views on this matter which it puts forward.
It seemed to me, in listening to the discussion, that perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South had found a way out of the difficulty. I hope that, if it is the genera] view of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that there should be some accommodation to meet the views of the local authorities which have expressed themselves on this matter, my right hon. Friend will be able to find a way in which he can meet all of us.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. John Diamond: It is a great, although perhaps slightly unusual pleasure, for me to be able to agree so wholeheartedly with what the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has just said and to join the County Borough of Gloucester with the County Borough of Tynemouth. Tynemouth, we were told, is an extremely well-conducted borough and I claim to say that for the County Borough of Gloucester.
There was a time when Parliament used to meet in Gloucester and knew how to carry out its own affairs. Gloucester feels that it is capable of conducting such small matters as were within its discretion in 1948, a year in which we had a Government which thought that it was appropriate to allow a local authority at all events a minimum of discretion.
The hon. Lady and I differ only on one point. The hon. Lady thought that this was a complicated matter. I think that it is a matter of extreme simplicity. It is merely a matter of the Government and a particular Minister pursuing certain well-known principles that, first, the Government must take away, on whatever pretext and however inappropriate the occasion, whatever small duties are left to a local authority and, secondly, to prove that he is strong, the Minister must, on every possible occasion, get the whole of the Opposition and all the local authority associations against him. These are the two simple principles functioning here which have produced this extraordinary subsection.
I say that this is an inappropriate and irrelevant occasion, because the Bill has nothing to do with this at all. It is a Bill for postponing a valuation. Nowhere else in the Bill are powers altered. It is merely that a date is postponed for two years, for reasons which we can all understand and accept, but there has been tucked into a subsection of this Clause a provision which takes away from local authorities, the County Borough of Tynemouth as well as the County Borough of Gloucester, powers which have been exercised since 1948 and in respect of which, so far as I am aware, there has been no serious criticism. Certainly, they are totally unrelated to the general valuation which is being postponed. In fact, the powers of the local authority are already in this respect at very low ebb.
After all, all that the local authority can do is to put forward its opinion and make a proposal. It cannot make a new rating assessment. It can merely make a proposal that in an appropriate case, where. for some reason, a matter is not generally in line with other rating assessments, it should be considered. That is a very small matter indeed for a local authority to do. It has this power and it should continue to have it.
No reasons have been shown why this power should be withdrawn from it. It is certainly not appropriate in a Bill of this kind to try to exclude a power of this kind. It is out of line with the Minister's philosophy that not only should he seek to withdraw powers from the local authority, but that he should seek to do so retrospectively. Here we are, in the middle of April, and we have


by no means finished with this Bill, concerned with powers which would be deemed to have been withdrawn from the 12th February, which is two months ago already and may be three or four months past by the time the Bill comes into effect.
I know that 12th February was the date when the Bill was printed, but that does not alter the fact that it has this further element in this subsection which, I should have thought, would make it wholly unacceptable to the right hon. Gentleman's political philosophy. Therefore, for those reasons, I should have thought that the Amendment before the Committee to leave out the subsection completely would be one that would appeal to the Committee, although there may be put in its place at a later stage some form of wording which would deal with the major difficulty which the Minister sees. Just because there is a major difficulty over a complete or semi-complete revaluation, and because the Minister sees that danger, which is not so very great, he is not entitled to withdraw from the local authorities the small powers which at the moment rest with them.
I support wholeheartedly the speeches which have been made on both sides of the Committee.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: I do not want to add to the discussion of this problem except to say that it is my duty also to put forward the view of another efficient and extremely well-run local authority, which does not happen to have at the moment county borough status, though that is hoped for in the near future. I am one who favors entirely decentralisation as a principle. Anything which tends to withdraw powers from local authorities immediately arouses opposition from me.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that if the Opposition Amendment were accepted, as such, it might have and could have the effect of permitting a local authority to revalue the whole of its shop premises at one fell swoop or even all its industrial hereditaments. I do not think that that would be a good thing or acceptable to the Committee, but I think that what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) said has great validity.
I hope that, having regard to the views of both sides of the Committee on this matter, the Minister will not be too recalcitrant and in some way or another, to use the words of the town clerk of my local authority, will preserve
the right of a rating authority to propose alterations to the valuation list where the resulting assessment is not excessive, incorrect or unfair having regard to values ascribed in the list to other hereditaments of the same class.

Mr. Leslie Hale: We have reached a point in Committee in which the public has a considerable interest. It might not have been observed by the Minister that up to now every speech made from either side of the Committee has been against the Clause. No one has been seeking to catch your eye, Sir Gordon, to defend it, and the Committee has reached the position in which the sincerity of hon. Members on both sides may be put to the test shortly unless the 'Minister meets the point. Hon. Members, having put without reservation and hesitation the views of local authorities who have written to them, would like to know whether the Minister is taking any notice and any action and, if not, how the vote will be taken and recorded.
I did not rise to pursue this local authority tour de l'horizon or perhaps I should say tour des hotels des vines. I rose to ask a question, because it seems to me that if there is anything more astounding in recent social history than the Minister's actions it is the explanations that he gives for those actions. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech on Second Reading in which he said:
…if there is to be a general postponement, a door ought not to be left open for attempts to secure partial revaluations.
The right hon. Gentleman may be surprised if I say that that seems to me a very fair argument. We are not to have any valuations at all. We shall freeze everything at a special figure, until after the election.
The Government say to people " Your rates have not gone up, even if your rents have." We can understand the motives. It is at least a system, whether it is good or bad, but having said that, after a full stop and the usual pause, the right hon.


Gentleman, sparkling out among the fern and bickering down the valley, adds:
Subsection (3) debars anyone, other than the valuation officer or owner or occupier concerned, from making any proposal for altering the current valuation list." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 820.]
In other words he says, " We are to have a little free-from-crime organization and put a stop to all these prosecutions. We shall not prevent criminals from appealing against their sentence, but we will let the police intervene. We shall have one side only."
Therefore, we have a situation in which local authorities, which, after all, are concerned for their vital revenue in this matter, are the only bodies or persons debarred. A system of checks and balances has been arranged. I do not think that it is perfect, but at least it is sensible and there is an independent valuation officer who acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. He has at his disposal a vast amount of information and the services of advisory valuers if he needs them, and he is to lean neither to the right nor to the left.
The valuation officer is to make a proposal and then the Government says that as a matter of justice the owner or occupier can make representations if he feels aggrieved. So should the local authority. Both have financial concern in the hereditament. The local authority derives from it the revenue for the work which it has to do, and the owner-occupier is already paying the Government a great deal more than he wants to or expected to have to pay when he voted them into office.
The Minister says, " We are not going to have an open door, but a two-piece door," that is, a door rather like the French court used to have —two doors for the higher nobles and one door for the smaller ones. The Government say, " We shall let one side make representations, but not the other." That makes neither rhyme nor reason.
When we go back for a moment to consider the framework in which this proposal is presented we find that it is based on the proposition, which, so far as I know, has never been supported by evidence and depends on the right hon. Gentleman's statement alone, that for some reason it is impractical for the Valuation Office to prepare this valua-

tion until 1961. No one noticed it until there was talk of an early election. No one heard of it until last November, and it became acutely obvious about 12th January of this year.
If local authorities are debarred from making representations in any circumstances about any property in respect of which a proposal is submitted for a change of use affecting rateable value, it may have a serious affect. And in some cases, under town planning, the grant of use is made by the local authority. No change of use, no alteration of the building, and no adaptation is to be permitted to intervene. What happens to the staff of the local authority when the valuation is effected? What about the staff of the local authority in 1963? Will they be able to cope with all the proposals that may come forward then and the new considerations put upon them after they have been kept entirely out of the waiting world for some time?
It is relevant that local authorities have officers to perform this duty. They are employed on and paid for performing the duty. What happens to them in the meantime? Are they to take notes and make preparations for proposals to be put forward in some years' time? This proposal will not do. It is, admittedly, a narrow field but, nevertheless, a negation of the ordinary principles of justice. It seems to me a further piece of evidence that, for some reason in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, " local authority " is a naughty word much as " Co-ops " used to be in the minds of noble Lords who now direct the Conservative Party.
It used to be always the Co-op that was a symbol in the Conservative mind of something rather undesirable and rather retrograde and something which conflicted with whatever principles they had convinced themselves they possessed. Now we find that in the right hon. Gentleman's mind it is the local authority — which has been called upon in the last eight years to bear more administrative and financial burdens than ever before and which has been treated abominably by the present Government and deprived of the means and debarred from carrying out its social services.
I did not intend to refer to the hotels des villes, but if I can refer to any one town selected at random — let us say, Oldham — I might say that every


morning I am receiving heart-rending letters about the effect of refusals to build on people who are waiting for hospital admissions and who need certain services but have been deprived of them because of all these restrictions. Now there is another. We cut the revenue in one way and now we cut their right to make representations as to the source of their revenue. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is a singularly sensitive person, but he may have come to the conclusion by now that these proposals are not very popular. Perhaps he will take this opportunity of considering that situation.

4.30 p.m.

Sir Hamilton Kerr: Little did I think that when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) defeated me so soundly in Oldham, in the 1945 General Election, I should be speaking in complete agreement with him on this issue. I hope that my right hon. Friend will lend a sympathetic ear to the arguments advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, particularly as I have received a special plea from the City of Cambridge. The rating authorities are merely seeking to retain their existing powers which have a practical basis, in that they enable the rating lists to be kept up to date. Now that flexibility has become the theme in foreign policy, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of adopting it in his Department by reaching accommodation on this Amendment?

Mr. Graham Page: I rise because the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said that nobody had risen to defend the Minister's Clause, and I am happy to do so.

Mr. John Paton: The hon. Gentleman is late.

Mr. Page: Nevertheless, I am here to do it. The hon. Member for Oldham. West said that it was reasonable that if there was to be a postponement there should be a complete postponement. I think that that is reasonable. One can see what would happen from the practice which has been adopted by some local authorities on past occasions when the door has been left open for revaluation in a certain area although there has been a national postponement of revaluation.
The hon. Gentleman also said that under this Clause only local authorities w ere debarred from making proposals. That is not true. If there were not this postponement, if there were not this debarring of proposals for revaluation, then any owner could make proposals about property other than his own. Indeed, as hon. Members know, this is done frequently by ratepayers' associations, who complain that certain property is undervalued and that, therefore, the property of their members is rated too highly. Such a proposal is debarred under the Clause.
So it is not only local authorities who are debarred. It means, however, that the only people who can make the proposals are the valuation officers who, as the hon. Gentleman said, are independent and disinterested persons and in an entirely different class from the local authorities. There is also the owner of the property himself. Surely it is right to allow the owner to make a proposal even though there is a general postponement of the right of appeal.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that revaluations have not come frequently? We had none between 1935 and 1956, and goodness knows when the next one will be.

Mr. Page: I agree that revaluation has been postponed again and again not only by the present Government, he will remember, but by his own Government. I cannot understand why there should be the suggestion of a postponement by reason of a coming General Election when this Government propose it. Exactly the same thing was done by hon. Gentlemen opposite before a General Election when they were in office.

Mr. Lindgren: At the same time, the local authorities then had the power to correct anomalies in the valuation list if they found any, and that is being taken away.

Mr. Page: I would go a long way with the hon. Gentleman on this point and say that there is undoubtedly here, as well as in the whole of rating, a matter which needs careful consideration as between the Ministry and the local authorities. This period of postponement might well be used for setting up a committee as between the Ministry and the local


authorities to consider this subject, perhaps going a little wider than the mere dates of revaluation by considering many of the anomalies in connection with rating.

Mr. Ede: I support the general argument advanced by so many hon. Members and I do not wish to repeat anything that has been said. I only want to ask one question. What happens when the local authority is the owner or occupier of property, as most local authorities now are to a large extent? Will they still be debarred or, if they are the owner or occupier, can they then submit a proposal?

Mr. Frederick Lee: It was typical of the general approach which is always taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), in these matters that he decided to select a town represented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, namely, Oldham. The hon. Gentleman obviously agrees with my hon. Friend but, as a member of the Government, he is somewhat prescribed in what he can say on this issue. I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman will be grateful to my hon. Friend that this case was put.
I assume from subsection (3) that the Minister is attempting to ensure that there cannot be an alteration in local revaluation while national revaluation is in progress. This, I should have thought, presupposes that since valuation of rating went over to the Inland Revenue there have been difficulties as between the rating department and local authorities. Yet I am not aware of any such difficulties existing on any scale, and if the Minister persists in his attitude it is for him to show that there is, or have been, wide differences of approach in this matter as between the local authorities and the Inland Revenue. So that he finds it necessary to safeguard the position for the Inland Revenue.
If the Minister can quote any such instances, I shall be surprised, because I was not aware that this had been going on. If I am right, while supporting my hon. Friend, I am entitled to claim that there is no real danger in present circumstances of anything of the kind happening. If I am right in this, what is the purpose of the subsection?
Irlam Urban District Council, in my constituency, has pointed out to me that industrial properties represent 51 per cent of its total rateable value. That is a very high percentage and even a slight alteration in any of those large industrial concerns can seriously effect the position of that council. I do not think that the Minister has made out a claim that local authorities have been in any way irresponsible in their dealings with the Inland Revenue authorities, nor that there is any reason to believe that we are likely to have great differences in practice between two types of authority.
As he is quite unable to say that such a state of affairs is likely, local authorities are entitled to the view that they are being treated cavalierly by the right hon. Gentleman when he suggests that they are not sufficiently responsible during a period of national revaluation to co-operate with the Department responsible. I hope that he will agree to delete the subsection. With one exception, all hon. Members who have spoken have been in favor of such an action and I hope that he will tell us that he will withdraw subsection (3) in view of the consensus of opinion in the Committee.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I have listened to the debate with the greatest interest for the past hour, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I rise now to restate the problem to which we all have to give attention.
During the debate I have been in sympathy with nothing more than the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), that she found all this very complicated. The stature of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) rose greatly in my eyes when he said that it was all very simple to him. I do not find rating and valuation light, gay or simple, and I greatly envy the mind of anybody who can. I therefore hope that the Committee will be patient with me if I endeavour to explain why the Government originally inserted this subsection and why we feel it necessary to defend it.
Before I come to my main argument, I must reply to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and assure him that if a local authority is an owner or occupier of premises it will certainly


have the right, like any other owner or occupier, to make a proposal under the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Ede: Even if the property is not in its own area?

Mr. Brooke: Provided it is the owner or occupier. That is the test.
The difficulties here stem from one fundamental fact. There is a concealed ambiguity in the present power to make fresh assessments during the period between general revaluations. Frankly, the present state of the law is unsatisfactory. I must advise the Committee that none of the Amendments on the Notice Paper would put that right and that there is an extensive problem to which Parliament will have to give its full attention at the right time.
This ambiguity has existed ever since 1925, but it has been of only limited general importance until the post-war years, when the rate of increase in rental values has been unusually high. It is that fact which has brought attention to the difficulty.

Mr. Mitchison: The Rent Act.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. and learned Gentleman mentions the Rent Act. He will know that the rise in values in commercial properties since 1945 has been very much greater than anything seen in house property.
The ambiguity is in deciding the level of values at which new or revised assess-men -s should be made. I will give an example, not unlike an example quoted earlier. It is that of a shop correctly valued in the present list, drawn up in 1955 and put into operation in 1956, at £100, by reference to the rental values then current. Let us suppose an identical shop now being built and coming into rating later in 1959 or 1960 and that shop rents in the area rise by, say, 20 per cent from the date of the last valuation. Should the new shop be assessed at £100 because it is identical with the one correctly assessed at £100, or should it be assessed at £120 on the ground that rental values have risen by 20 per cent. since the last revaluation?
Frankly, the law gives us no clear guidance on that issue. In all likelihood, an assessment of £120 could be sustained

under the law, but it would create anomalies and indefensible inequity between the two shopkeepers concerned. What is the valuation officer to do? Is he to increase the first assessment to £120 as well? If so, he will remove the inequity between those two shopkeepers, but create inequity among many other people. There would be unfairness between those two shopkeepers and all the other shopkeepers in the area. Is he to revalue all the shops in the area? If so, all the shops in that area will be valued on one basis, whereas all the rest of the property will be valued on another basis.
If one follows that line, one cannot arrive at any point of fairness until there has been a complete revalution. It is doubtful whether one could revalue the houses in relation to rental values, because the basis is firmly tied to 1939. However, the ambiguity arises over the whole range of hereditaments, apart from houses.
What is the right way of handling this? The commonsense solution is to disregard changes in rental levels since 1956 when assessing new or altered properties for the purpose of the existing list. To be logical, if one does that, one has to hold back from any revision of values before the next revaluation, to the extent that the revision would take up any part of an increase in rental values since the last valuation. In general terms, that is the practice of valuation officers. When making a valuation, they ignore an increase in rental values since the last valuation.
After the Bill had been printed and had received its Second Reading, I met the representatives of all the local authority associations, at their request before Easter, and discussed this difficulty with them. As a result of that meeting, we clarified the issues and I invited them to go away over Easter and consider further whether there were any means, any device, by which one could try to secure all-round equity while leaving the door open for the correction of what were clearly inaccuracies or errors.
I mention that at this point, because, from my conversations with local authority associations, that practice of the valuation officers which I have just described is in its broad application, one which I think the local authority associations are ready to support. What I cannot


say, what they cannot say, and what no one can say, is that all local authorities are ready to support it. If a local authority departs from this practice and starts seeking a partial revaluation by putting in a number of proposals, the difficulties of anomaly and inequity will arise in the area concerned.
I am not criticising the local authority which does such a thing; no doubt it believes it to be right and in the interests of its own area. Such a local authority evidently treats what I have described as the prevailing view as a wrong view, but I must advise the Committee that there is nothing in the law as it stands at present to restrain any local authority from trying to get a partial revaluation which takes into account current values in its area.
I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred to certain cases.

Mr. Mitchison: Do I understand that local authorities, at a meeting after Easter, to wit, at a meeting on 7th April, made proposals to the Government and they were turned down?

Mr. Brooke: I was coming to that.

Mr. Mitchison: It is difficult to see the connection between the ambiguity to which the right hon. Gentleman refers and the exclusion of local authorities from the right to make proposals, unless the suggestion is that all the valuation officers can be relied on to take one view of this doubtful point and local authorities may take different ones, as I should have thought they were entitled to do and have their views tested.

Mr. Brooke: I was going to deal with these questions. As I had sat patiently for an hour, and there were many points on which I wished to answer, I was trying to get my argument into shape.
There is no doubt that local authorities are liable to take advantage of this ambiguity, loophole, or whatever one likes to call it. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in his speech, referred to Liverpool. An outstanding case was the conduct of the Sheffield City Council, in 1955, when, during the eight days before the last day on which a proposal could be put in, 9,500 proposals were put in. The Sheffield City Council was clearly and validly seeking a partial revaluation

on the higher current rental values of a particular section of the properties in its area.
If the Bill goes unamended there is nothing to prevent that happening again. Indeed, something very much on those lines is happening in Hertfordshire under proposals which were legitimately put in before this Bill was published.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I know the Minister will realise that at the time when the Sheffield City Council took the action it did—and as has happened more recently in Liverpool—there were special circumstances arising in respect of revaluation that made that action essential. There is a great difference between the circumstances at that time and the circumstances today. One has to face two anomalies that are not repeated in almost every phase of this valuation list. That is the situation that the Minister has to face now.

Mr. Brooke: I do not think that the hon. Member can give the Committee any undertaking that in the next four years there will not be other local authorities which will think that they have a good case for seeking to increase their rateable value by making sweeping proposals to obtain a revaluation of particular classes of property in their area.
This stems from the ambiguity in the law and I should have thought that the one thing on which we could all agree was that it was desirable to have a permanent measure to get this matter clearly governed by Statute and not resting on the customary action of valuation officers, or on gentlemen's agreements among local authorities, or anything of that kind. It was for that reason that when I met the local authority associations I asked them if they would join with officers of my Department, acting under my direction, in a general review of the whole field of rating valuation. This is essential before the 1963 revaluation takes place and we can make good use of the interval of time.
There are also a number of other matters that have to be considered. There is the question—which I am not prejudging—whether five years is the ideal period between revaluations. There are questions of the basis of assessments for various types of undertakings, and so on, and I am glad to say that the local


authority associations assured me that they would willingly enter into discussions of that kind. This will be set on foot as soon as may be.
The purpose of subsection (3) is to make sure that no local authority, by a partial local revaluation, can circumvent the decision to postpone the general revaluation. Taking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), no private individual can stop it, though it is always open to the owner or the occupier to move.
Having been frank and open with the local authorities, I invited them to continue having discussions with my Department to see whether there was a form of words which could be written into this subsection effectively to close the door to a partial revaluation on a substantial scale, whilst still enabling a local authority to make a proposal to correct errors still remaining in the valuation lists. If there are errors in the list, there should be provision for getting them corrected. The primary responsibility for securing a fair and equitable list rests with valuation officers, but they need the help of everybody to do that.
I invited the local authority associations to consider this and come back to my Department after Easter with any form of words which they thought would meet the case. It was from that invitation that at least two of the Amendments on the Notice Paper stem. When there was a further meeting after Easter and it was possible to examine these forms of words that had been suggested, it was found that none of them would be satisfactory and that nothing would suffice if we were to tackle this at all short of a much more radical Amendment of the law flowing from a thorough examination of it in relation to all types of properties.
In passing, I would point out that there has already been over three years in which to correct any error in the list. It has been possible to make a proposal at any time since April, 1956, so there should not be many errors left.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Rippon: Would my right hon. Friend say how that could possibly help in the case where there is an alteration of the structure, or a change of use, such

as would raise the question whether partial derating is applicable?

Mr. Brooke: I was coming to my hon. Friend's Amendment. There is no special reason to preserve the rights of local authorities or others in the limited field of the structurally altered property. That is where there is least likely to be a difference of opinion. If we leave that door open it would render it possible for a local authority, or anybody else, to make a proposal based upon current rental values and not upon the 1956 values. I appreciate that his Amendment is designed to try to prevent that, but where structural alterations are concerned difficulties are not likely to arise.
A local authority has a specific duty to draw the attention of the valuation officer to anything that comes to its notice, in the exercise of its functions, which may necessitate an alteration. In the normal course of events local authorities have to be consulted, in one of their capacities, about any kind of structural alteration to a house—under the building Acts, or the town planning Acts, or in some other respect. That is the normal way in which alterations of that kind come to the notice of valuation officers.
The second part of my hon. Friend's Amendment, which is closely akin to part of the hon. and learned Member's second Amendment, is of a more far-reaching character, and I should like to explain why the Government do not feel that we could solve the problem by a simple change such as is suggested in one or other of the Amendments. If we were going to make any alteration it would almost certainly have to be more far-reaching than those proposed. The hon. and learned Member's Amendment would provide that certain proposals should have effect only where the resulting assessment was not excessive, incorrect or unfair in relation to the values given in the list to other hereditaments of the same class. That has the effect of altering the legal basis of assessment for certain properties. The basis, which is at present ambiguous, would be altered for certain properties if a proposal were made by a certain class of people, but not if it was made by another class.
Furthermore, if the principle of valuing according to the tone of the list is to be put into an Act of Parliament


it must apply universally. The Amendments to which I have just referred would have the effect of providing different statutory bases according to the class of person making the assessment. That cannot be sensible. In addition, this tone of the list principle would have to be applied not only to property whose assessment was based on direct rental evidence but also to classes of property such as were mentioned by the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Prentice)—to whose speech I listened with interest—such as water undertakings and other public utilities whose assessments are based on an accounts or profits basis.
Nobody has yet suggested how we could value on that basis and, at the same time, on a tone of the list basis. As I believe the hon. Member has himself perceived, it is possible to seek an annual revaluation of properties of that kind, although it may not be obtained. Moreover, if we are using such words as " unfair in relation to other properties of the same class ", we must very closely define what we mean by the same class. There is no one class of shops. There are small corner shops, and there are great departmental stores in main shopping streets, and these two kinds of shop are found in the same rating area. Their rating values may, nevertheless, have varied relatively greatly in three or four years.
If we are to seek to introduce into the Bill something which establishes a link with the tone of the list we must also write into the Bill provisions to allow all concerned to obtain the necessary information. The principle of the Amendments is based upon the possibility of making comparisons, and if persons are to be allowed to make comparisons it is imperative to make available detailed particulars of the other properties with which comparisons are sought to be made. We would, therefore, have to provide for a statutory right of access to information of that kind. That is why I say that we cannot make an alteration on the tone of the list basis by a simple amendment of the subsection.

Mr. Mitchison: I am coming to the rescue of the right hon. Gentleman, who will catch his own tail unless we do something about it. All this has been going on since 1925, and in an aggravated form since the war, according to him. If there

is this ambiguity, all that he is going to do to solve it is to leave it to valuation officers, whom he thinks can be relied upon, and gag local authorities. That cannot be right.

Mr. Brooke: What the hon. and learned Member proposes in his second Amendment cannot be right, either. That would leave it open for a repetition of what has happened in the case of Sheffield, Banbury and Solihull, and what has been happening recently in Hertfordshire.
Various hon. Members have spoken up for their local authorities—and all honour to them—but the Minister, if no one else, must stand up for the private citizen. [HON. MEMBERS: " 0h."] Yes—the Minister must stand up for the private citizen who wishes to see equity between one class of ratepayer and another. Wherever these partial revaluations have been attempted they have given rise to the most intensely bitter feeling between different classes of ratepayer. as is naturally and unavoidably the case when a proposal for a partial revaluation is designed to put one class of ratepayers on a completely different basis of valuation from other classes.
I have said that I met the local authorities and asked them to join with me in forming a working party, and they have generously said that they will. My officers met them after Easter and examined their amending proposals, which I had seen, and on my directions my Department explained to the local authority associations why none of those proposals would work. I have given four reasons in the last few minutes why they would not operate fairly, and why, if we are to tackle this problem, we must do so on a broader front, and after much longer consideration. It is not something which can be dealt with by an insertion at short notice into a Bill concerned solely with postponement.
What I want to secure—and I know that the local authority associations will appreciate this, if it can be done—is that local authorities and all ratepayers can feel satisfied that if genuine representations are made to the valuation officers, whether by local authorities, ratepayers or anybody else, they will not lightly be dismissed by those valuation officers, but will receive proper consideration. The right of the valuation officer to make proposals remains unaltered.
The Committee knows that valuation officers do not come under me. They are part of the Valuation Office, for which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible in the House of Commons. I have consulted him on this matter, and he has authorised me to tell the Committee that valuation officers will be instructed to give full weight to representations by local authorities, and to be prepared, in instances where there is a reasonable case for the local authority's views, to make proposals to enable the authority to have the issue determined, if necessary, on appeal. This will apply not only to representations by local authorities. It will apply equally to those made by anyone else, who, under the present law, would have the right to make a proposal.
Those arrangements would not, of course, apply to any increases in assessments which might be sought on account of a rise in rental levels which has occurred since the lists were prepared: they would be limited to making corrections in order to secure the 1956 tone of the list. This, to be frank, was the main point which the local authority associations put when they met me.
Quite plainly, it will be necessary for the valuation officer to satisfy himself that there would be merit in that case to present to the valuation court, but, in any case when a local authority considers that a valuation officer has unreasonably refused to take action at its instance, the local authority will, as always. be able to pursue the matter within the Valuation Office and, if it thinks fit, through its local authority association and right up to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
I submit to the Committee that this is the practical and commonsense way of handling this matter. All Governments, of all parties, since 1925 have had some share of responsibility for the ambiguity in the present law. This is the first time that positive action has been initiated to try to clear up this matter. We are going to work in association with the local authority associations to see whether we can work out a complete and comprehensive solution that would lead to fresh legislation before the 1963 revaluation.
Meanwhile, I put it to the Committee that the assurance that I have already

given to the Committee from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will make certain that valuation officers will not lightly ignore what local authorities suggest to them, but that, despite this ban which the subsection will put on any individual local authority seeking to make, as I would say, unfairly, a partial local revalution, there will still be a real opportunity for the local authority to get genuine errors corrected. That. I believe, is what the whole Committee desires.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer one question? He has said that he must be the protector of the rights of individual citizens. Is it not a fact—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not realise this—that even if an owner or occupier can still make proposals he is often in the position that although he knows, or believes he knows, that his own hereditament is incorrectly assessed, he cannot show why? Hitherto, under a long-established practice, he therefore put in a third-party proposal in relation to other hereditaments. If the Minister insists upon having this third subsection in the Bill, is he not, in fact, taking away the opportunity for the individual who believes his assessment is wrong to submit a proposal? That is really the crux of the whole thing, and, if that is so, can the right hon. Gentleman say that he is protecting the rights of the individual citizen?

Mr. Brooke: Yes, I can, because it is the individual citizen who suffers most and feels the greatest grievance if partial revaluations are made, so that one part of the list is on a current rental value basis and the rest of the list is on the tone of the list basis. That, frankly, is indefensible, and has caused intense ill feeling.
What I have sought to do, as I think the hon. Member will appreciate, is to safeguard by the undertaking that I have given the assurance that valuation officers will not, if this Bill goes through, simply close their ears and eyes to any suggestions which are made to them, but will take them seriously, and, wherever there is prima facie merit in them, will act and make a proposal themselves.

Mr. Lindgren: It has been the misfortune of some of my hon. and right hon. Friends, because of the spate of


legislation which the right hon. Gentleman has been bringing before the House in the last two or three years, to be almost daily opposite to him. He has been ineffective at times, but I have never seen or heard him so ineffective as he was today. He was so ineffective that he got his own Whip worried enough to move around among his own supporters because of their threat to revolt against him. If the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) had been in her place, I doubt whether she could have understood what the Minister has been talking about for the last half-hour or so.
The Minister said that there is ambiguity in the law, and, therefore, to deal with that position, which has existed since 1925, we are to freeze the powers of local authorities. That is all he has done. Let us be quite clear about this. Let us have a little of the history of this matter. The Inland Revenue Department has never wanted the local authorities to have this power to put in their own proposals. The power was not in the 1948 Act, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was big enough to give way when that Bill was going through Committee, because of the pressure from local authorities, and also because he was convinced that it was wrong to deprive local authorities of that right, and he put in an Amendment which gave local authorities their power in Section 40 of the 1948 Act.
The Minister says that this is partial revaluation. Let us be quite clear what we are talking about. This partial revaluation never affects domestic hereditaments: all that it affects are commercial and industrial properties, shops and factories. The Minister has mentioned Hertfordshire. It is perfectly true that in Hertfordshire we have had a. number of proposals for revaluation. Why? It is because, in fact, there have moved into Hertfordshire, and particularly the southern half of Hertfordshire, over the last ten years, hundreds of thousands of people. The value of a shop is dependent upon its takings over the counter, and the more the population increases, the greater the tendency for the takings over the shop counter to increase, and so the values go up.
What is rateable value dependent upon? It is dependent on rental value, and if that goes up, the rateable value

ought to go up. The right hon. Gentleman now puts himself in a guise in which we have never seen him before—as the protector of the private citizen. What about the Rent Act? What he is, in fact, is the protector of the profits of the multiple shops, the shopkeepers and the industrialists.
What is the purpose of rating? It is to share equitably the burden of the cost of the social services within the area, and, with the method we operate, the rateable value is dependent on rental value. Therefore, shop properties, the rental value of which has increased materially in a matter of four, five or six years, are valued by the valuation officers at that rental value, not at that time, but at the time when the valuation was made. For new shops we put down the value to the figure which obtained five, six or seven years back in order to keep it level with that for the old shops, so that the shopkeepers in these new shops are making an enhanced profit by not paying their fair contribution to the general rates of the area. A portion of their rates is being paid by the domestic ratepayers.
In Hertfordshire, industrial and commercial properties have increased considerably. It is the people of the area who create the rateable value. Were it possible for the whole population in a town of 50,000 people to move overnight, the rateable value of the shops in that town would disappear. In theory, if an additional 50,000 people came into that town the value of the same shops would double, because the possibilities of profits would double. Do not let us hear any more about this Minister being the protector of the private citizen. He is the protector of landlords' profits; he is the protector of shopkeepers' profits—he is the protector of anybody's profits. But the position of the private citizen rarely occurs to the right hon. Gentleman. We suggest that this will take from the local authorities a right which they have always had.
Anyone would think from what the right hon. Gentleman says that a local authority which makes a proposal does not have to convince a valuation court that the proposal is right. When a local authority makes a proposal, it does so against the valuation officer and so it starts at a disadvantage. The professional person responsible for making the valuation is not doing it. The local authority


has stepped in to do it and the local authority has not the same resources to enable it to do the job as the valuation officer has. It has no right of entry, or the same rights of assessing values and obtaining all sorts of information.
The local authority must justify the valuation which it makes, because the owner is bound to appeal against it in the valuation court; and if he is not satisfied, he can go to the Lands Tribunal. A local authority has to justify itself before an impartial body, and if it does so, who is the right hon. Gentleman to say that a local authority should not protect its ratepayers by ensuring that a fair share of the rate burden is borne by those whose property values have been increased?
Shops and commercial premises are dependent on their rental value and if there is a change, the owner or occupier can put in a proposal for a reduction in the rateable value. This very often happens. I can think of one local authority with which 1 was associated where the values of a string of shops deteriorated because one entrance to a railway station was closed and another was opened a little further away, with the result that the flow of custom changed, and the rental value of the shops went down.

Mr. Hale: May I come back again to Oldham? A month ago we had over 6,000 unemployed. The money coming into the town went down by something like £6,000 a week, and the shopkeepers were suffering. Under a Tory Government we may get a situation in which they could make proposals for a new rateable value on the ground that the trade of the town had disappeared.

Mr. Lindgren: My hon. Friend is quite right. If the value falls, the owner or the occupier of a shop or industrial premises can make a proposal that the rates be reduced and the valuation court would agree, if it were satisfied that the value had been reduced. So we get the position in which a local authority has to accept a reduction because of a decrease in the rental value; and this protector of the private

citizen intends to stop local authorities from putting in proposals to increase the rates where values have increased. He wishes to stop local authorities from getting an increased share of the rate burden from these people in order to assist all the other ratepayers in the area.
The Minister has said nothing about the situation in Liverpool and Sheffield where local authorities acted outside their rights. Regarding Liverpool, every official effort was made to try to undermine that action, even to the extent of taking the local authority before Lord Chief Justice Goddard. When the local authority got the ruling which it did, the Liverpool City Council got this protector of the private citizen to try to undermine that victory of the local authority by inserting this Clause in the Bill to destroy the value of the finding of Lord Chief Justice Goddard. But for that victory, this Clause would not have been put into the Bill. It is a method of taking away by the back door what has been won and established by local authorities, not only by means of the Amendment inserted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale—the then Minister—into the 1948 Act, but also through the courts of this country when their rights were challenged.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will stand up for the local authorities so that they may maintain the right to protect their citizens. I would sooner leave the protection of the rights of private citizens in the hands of the local authorities of this country than trust them to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have had representations from their local authorities to support us, will take their courage in both hands and not be afraid of this protector of the private citizen. I hope that they will come to the aid of the local authorities in their area so that the rate burden may be shared equally among all the ratepayers.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to " for " in line 18, stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 191, Noes 168.

Division No. 82.]
AYES
[5.28 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr.R. (Nantwich)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Aitken, W. T.
Green, A.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Alport, C. J. M.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nicholls, Harmar


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)


Arbuthnot, John
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Armstrong, C. W.
Gurden, Harold
Nugent, G. R. H.


Atkins, H. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Page, R. G.


Balniel, Lord
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Barber, Anthony
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Partridge, E.


Barlow, Sir John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Peel, W. J.


Barter, John
Hay, John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Batsford, Brian
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pott, H. P.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Powell, J. Enoch


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. o. L.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Profumo, J. D.


Bevins, J. B. (Toxteth)
Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)
Ramsden, J. E.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hornby, R. P.
Redmayne, M.


Bingham, R. M.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Horobin, Sir Ian
Remnant, Hon. P.


Bishop, F. P.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Renton, D. L. M.


Body, R. F.
Howard, Geraid (Cambridgeshire)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Braine, B. R.
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Sharpies, R. C.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Bryan, P.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Speir, R. M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Channon, H. P. G.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stevens, Geoffrey


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kershaw, J. A.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cooper, A. E.
Kirk, P. M.
Storey, S.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lagden, G. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Corfield, F. V.
Leavey, J. A.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Leburn, W. G.
Temple, John M.


Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Cunningham, Knox
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


de Ferranti, Basil
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Doughty, C. J. A.
Longden, Gilbert
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Drayson, G. B.
Loveys, Walter H.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chlswick)
Vane, W. M. F.


Duncan, sir James
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vickers, Miss Joan


Duthle, W. S.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Wall, Patrick


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, S. R.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Fell, A.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Fisher, Nigel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Webster, David


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maddan, Martin
Whitelaw, W. S. 1.


Freeth, Denzil
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Gammans, Lady
Marshall, Douglas
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mathew, R.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Woollam, John Victor


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Mawby, R. L.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Godber, J. B.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.



Goodhart, Philip
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Graham, Sir Fergus
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Finlay.


Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles



NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Brockway, A. F.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Albu, A. H.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davles, Harold (Leek)


Baird, J.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Balfour, A.
Carmichael, J.
Deer, G.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Diamond, John


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Champion, A. J.
Dodds, N. N.


Benson, Sir George
Chetwynd, G. R.
Donnelly, D. L.


Beswick, Frank
Cliffe, Michael
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwoh,


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Clunie, J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Blenkinsop, A.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Bonham Carter, Mark
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Boyd, T. C.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)







Fernyhough, E.
Lawson, G. M.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Fletcher, Eric
Lewis, Arthur
Ross, William


Foot, D. M.
Lindgren, G. S.
Shinwell Rt. Hon. E.


Forman, J. C.
Lipton, Marcus
Short, E. W.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Gibson, C. W,
McCann, J.
Skeffington, A. M.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacColl, J. E
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Greenwood, Anthony
McInnes, J.
Sorensen, R. w.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sparks, J. A.


Grimond, J.
McLeavy, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Hale, Leslie
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stonehouse, John


Hamilton, W. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Strauss, Rt, Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hannan, W.
Mayhew, C. P.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hastings, S.
Mellish, R. J.
Swingler, S. T.


Hayman, F. H.
Messer, Sir F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Healey, Denis
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thornton, E.


Herbison, Miss M.
Moody, A. S.
Tomney, F.


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Wade, D. W.


Holman, P.
Moyle, A.
Warbey, W. N.


Holt, A. F.
Oram, A. E.
Weitzman, D.


Hoy, J. H.
Oswald, T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Owen, W. J.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hunter, A. E.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pargiter, G. A.
Willey, Frederick


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Parker, J.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paton, John
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Janner, B.
Peart, T. F.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Prentice, R. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Winterbottom, Richard


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Probert, A. R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jones, David (The Ha
rtlepools)
Proctor, W. T.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Zilliacus, K.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rankin, John



Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Redhead, E. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kenyon, C.
Reynolds, G. W.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. J. Taylor


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rhodes, H.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, to leave out from " proposal " to the end of the Clause and to add:
served on the valuation officer after the twelfth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine, for altering a valuation list in force at the passing of this Act (not being a proposal made by the valuation officer) shall have effect only where the assessment resulting from the said proposal is not excessive, incorrect or unfair in relation to the values ascribed in

the list to other hereditaments of the same class at the date of the proposal".

I move this Amendment formally—unless it is the intention of the Government to resign at once, in view of the result of the last Division.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 189, Noes 167.

Division No. 83.]
AYES
[5.38 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Body, R. F.
Duncan, Sir James


Aitken, W. T.
Bossom, Sir Alfred
Duthie, W. S.


Alport, C. J. M.
Braine, B. R.
Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Arbuthnot, John
Brooman-White, R. C.
Errington, Sir Eric


Armstrong, C. W.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Farey-Jones. F. W.


Atkins, H. E.
Bryan, P.
Fell, A.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fisher, Nigel


Balniel, Lord
Cary, Sir Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Barber, Anthony
Channon, H. P. G.
Freeth, Denzil


Barlow, Sir John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Barter, John
Cooper, A. E.
Gammans, Lady


Batsford, Brian
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
George, J. C (Pollok)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Corfield, F. V.
Gibson-Watt, D.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Glyn, Col. Richard H.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Godber, J. B.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Goodhart, Philip


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cunningham, Knox
Graham, Sir Fergus


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
de Ferranti, Basil
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)


Bingham, R. M,
Doughty, C. J. A.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Drayson, G. B.
Green, A.


Bishop, F. P.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Gresham Cooke, R.




Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)
Renton, D. L. M.


Grosvenor, Lt. Col. R. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ridsdale, j. E.


Gurden, Harold
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Rippon, A. G. F.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Roper, Sir Harold


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Sharpies, R. C.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hay, John
Madden, Martin
Speir, R. M.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stevens, Geoffrey


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Marshall, Douglas
Storey, 8.


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Mathew, R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mawby, R. L.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hornby, R. P.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.
Temple, John M.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Horobin, Sir Ian
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thomas, P. J. M, (Conway)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Nicholls, Harmer
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th.E. & Chr'ch)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Nugent, G. R. H.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
O'Neill, Hn, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Page, R. G.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Wall, Patrick


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Partridge, E.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Peel, W. J.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Kershaw, J. A.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Kirk, P. M.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Webster, David


Lagden, G. W.
Pott, H. P.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Leavey, J. A.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Leburn, W. G.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Legge-Burke, Maj. E. A. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Profumo, J. D.
Wollam, john Victor


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Ramsden, J. E.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Redmayne, M.



Longden, Gilbert
Rees-Davies, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Loveys, Walter H.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Mr. Finlay and Mr. Whitelaw


NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Albu, A. H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Kenyon, C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fernyhough, E
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Baird, J.
Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Lawson, G. M.


Balfour, A.
Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Fletcher, Eric
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Foot, D. M.
Lewis, Arthur


Benson, Sir George
Foreman, J. C.
Lindgren, G. S.


Berwick, Frank
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lipton, Marcus


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Blenkinsop, A.
Gibson, C. W.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary


Bonham Carter, Mark
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McCann, J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Greenwood, Anthony
MacColl, J. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McInnes, J.


Boyd, T. C.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Brockway, A. F.
Grimond, J.
McLeavy, Frank


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hale, Leslie
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamilton, W. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Carmichael, J.
Hannan, W.
Mayhew, C. P.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hastings, S.
Mellish, R. J.


Champion, A. J.
Hayman, F. H.
Messer Sir F


Chetwynd, G. R.
Healey, Denis
Mikardo, Ian


Cliffe, Michael
Henderson, Rt. Hn A. (Rwly Regis)
Mitchison, G. R.




Moody, A. S.


Clunie, J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Morrison Rt. Hn. Herbert(Lewis'm, s.)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Moyle, A.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Holman, P.
Oram, A. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Houghton, Douglas
Orbach, M.


Grossman, R. H. S.
Hoy, J. H.
Oswald, T.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Owen, W. J.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hunter, A. E.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pargiter, G. A.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Parker, J.


Diamond, John
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paton, John


Dodds, N. N.
Janner, B.
Pearson, A.


Donnelly, D. L.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Peart, T, F.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwich)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Prentice R. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Probert, A. R.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Proctor, W. T.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.







Rankin, John
Sparks, J. A.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Redhead, E. C.
Spriggs, Leslie
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Reynolds, G. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wilkins, W. A.


Rhodes, H.
Storehouse, John
Willey, Frederick


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon E.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Ross, William
Swingler, S. T.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Short, E. W.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Winterbottom, Richard


Silver-man, Sydney (Nelson)
Thornton, E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wade, D. W.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Skeffington, A.M.
Warbey, W. N.
Zilliacus, K.


Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Weitzman, D.



Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, at the end to add:
or relates to an hereditament which is already the subject of a proposal by the valuation officer".
I am sorry that the matters with which we have been dealing are not now included in the Bill, but I suggest to the Minister that this Amendment would improve the position of the rating authority under this Clause. It is not designed to allow the rating authority to do what the Minister is trying to stop it from doing, namely, to carry out a partial revaluation of the property within its area. If I understood the Minister, the main purpose of the Clause is to stop a rating authority carrying out a partial rerating and, in his words, to circumvent the decision to postpone a general revaluation. This Amendment would not allow that and would not breach the general principle the Minister has in mind.
As I understand the position at the moment, despite the general postponement of the introduction of valuation lists, proposals can still be put forward by the valuation officer, by the owner, or the occupier of the property and by the local authority in a case where the property is not included in the valuation list, but when the local authority thinks it ought to go into the list. We can assume quite safely that there will be a substantial number of proposals coming forward in the next few years pending a complete revaluation of property. When a proposal comes forward from the valuation officer, whether for an addition to a house, a new building or the partial derating of an hereditament, the local authority will be in a position of being able to object by not concurring with the proposal but in the majority of cases, as the Clause is drafted, it will be debarred from putting forward a proposal of its own.
In those circumstances, the valuation officer often puts forward a proposal and the occupier, not unnaturally, thinks the proposal is too high. Under the provisions of this Clause, the occupier will still be allowed to put forward his counter proposal. We may assume that the valuation officer considers that if additions are made to a property the new value for it should be £80 a year and he puts forward that value for the property. The occupier thinks it is excessive and puts forward his proposal for a value of £70. The local authority might think that the valuation officer has been a little generous and that the real value is £85. As it is an extension to an existing building in the valuation list, the local authority would be debarred from putting forward its own proposals.
If the matter went to the valuation court, the local authority would be in the rather ridiculous position of thinking that the valuation officer's proposal was a little too low and having to argue on those lines but not being able to put forward a proposal of its own reflecting what it considers to be the true value.
That would be the position if it went to the valuation court, but we know that, in practice, the valuation officer, looking to a certain extent for easy life—and one cannot blame him for that—will often endeavour to reach agreement with the occupier or owner of the property so that the matter does not go to the valuation court. Thus, the valuation put forward by the valuation officer of £80, with a counter proposal by the occupier or owner of £70, might be settled at £75 without the matter ever going to the valuation court, and yet the rating authority might be sitting in the background all the time thinking that £80 was a little too low. The authority would be faced with a settlement out of court at a figure of £75 without having a chance of putting its own objection let alone of putting what it considered should be the proper proposal for this type of property.
What I ask in the Amendment is that in such a case, where the valuation officer puts forward his own proposal, once the valuation officer has put the ball into the court the local authority should be allowed to make a proposal, too. In other words, I ask that on a property where the valuation officer has started the ball rolling, the local authority should be able to put forward proposals in future as it can in similar circumstances at present. It would not allow the local authority to start the ball rolling by putting forward its own valuation first. As I said, the valuation officer would set the ball rolling and the authority would then be able to make its own proposal, too.
There is another matter of a slightly different nature which also arises. From time to time property which has been in Part 1 of the valuation list becomes occupied for industrial purposes in some way or another, becomes subject to industrial derating and is moved into Part 2 of the list. Often, of course, not the whole of the property is entitled to industrial derating; only part of it is entitled to it. In such a case there may be a measure of disagreement as to what proportion of the property should be entitled to industrial derating.
We thus have a situation in which there may be a change of use by which the property becomes in part liable for industrial derating. The valuation officer may make a proposal and the occupier may disagree and make a counter proposal. The rating authority may disagree with both of them and think that both the valuation officer and the occupier are wrong, but it will be debarred from putting forward any proposal of its own. Once again, if the question goes before the valuation court the local authority is placed in the invidious position of arguing before the court that it disagrees with the other proposals made without having any positive case which it can put forward for its own proposal. Alternatively, and as is more likely, the matter will not reach the valuation court, in which case the local authority has virtually no safeguard.
The question has been raised on an earlier Amendment of cases such as the Metropolitan Water Board mains. To a certain extent this Amendment would help in those cases, too. Sooner or later,

even in such a case, the valuation officer has to make a proposal. If the Amendment is carried, once the valuation officer has made a proposal in respect of Metropolitan Water Board mains or any other property of that kind, it will be open to the local rating authority also to make its proposal.
To sum up, I do not think that the Amendment is contrary to the general principle enunciated by the Minister a few moments ago that the Clause is to stop any rating authority from carrying out a partial revaluation and circumventing the decision contained in the Bill to postpone general revaluation. It would simply mean that once a valuation officer has put forward a proposal, the rating authority, as a party directly affected by the proposal which he has made, should be entitled, if it so desires, to put forward its own proposal in order that if and when the matter goes to the valuation court, the court will have the job of deciding which proposal is right—that of the rating authority, the valuation officer or the owner or occupier. It would by no means allow the rating authority itself to start putting forward proposals in an attempt to secure partial revaluation of the property within its area. It would improve the position of the rating authority slightly in the context of the Clause, and I hope that the Minister will be able either to accept it or to give an assurance that the principle can be accepted and that he will introduce appropriate wording at a later stage.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): This is a much more limited proposition that those which we have debated earlier. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) has put his case very fairly and moderately and I will try briefly to do the same.
In the first place, it is true that there is nothing in Clause 1 (3) which deprives a rating authority of its right to object to any proposal. The present procedure is that if neither the proposal nor the objection is withdrawn and there is no agreed settlement between the parties, the valuation court must settle the issue as an appeal, but it is also the case that the alternatives which lie before the valuation court are rather limited. For example, the court is entitled to leave the entry unchanged, to give full effect to the proposal which has been made or to fix a


figure between the figure already in the list and that included in the proposal. What it cannot do is to increase the assessment when the proposal itself is a proposal for a reduction or to increase the assessment to a higher figure than the proposal itself. To that extent it is the case that the effect of a rating authority's objection, which is what we are discussing at the moment, is confined within certain fairly narrow limits.
Perhaps I may give a hypothetical illustration. A hereditament may be the rating list carrying an assessment of £150. The valuation officer's proposal may be for £200. There may be an objection lodged by the rating authority. Whatever happened in the event, the figure finally decided could not be more than £200, whereas it might be between £150 and £200. I agree that under the system of objection there is a strict limit about what can happen at the end of the day.
The Amendment would lay down that if a valuation officer made a proposal, a third party—an aggrieved person, which includes a rating authority—would be entitled to make a counter proposal and not merely to put in an objection, I concede at once that in principle, at any rate, this would not be objectionable in one respect—in the case where having regard to the tone of the list, a rating authority believed that the proposed increase was too small or the proposed reduction was too large. In most cases, the rating authority would probably object that the increase was not sufficiently large. On the other hand, it is precisely in this sort of case that the measures to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier for closer co-operation between rating authorities and the valuation office should go at least a long way to meet the position. Perhaps the hon. Member takes the view that the steps which my right hon. Friend has taken do not go far enough, but whatever view the Committee may take on that, I am bound to say that I think that we have gone as far as we can possibly go in that respect.
In any event, the Amendment is not acceptable to my right hon. Friend because it would enable a rating authority to try to get either new or altered properties into the list at current values. It would enable a rating authority, say, in 1960, to get a property on to the list at the valuation of that hereditament in 19596061, or whatever year it was, when

at the same time the other properties on the valuation list were at the 1956 values. That is because the inclusion at current values is in accordance with the law as we understand it.
Therefore, in spite of what the hon. Member for Islington, North has said, it is the fact that the Amendment, although I agree that it covers a relatively narrow field, would open the door to a limited partial revaluation which would penalise certain ratepayers.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary said that under the law as it now stands hereditaments are valued on their present value or their current value. Did the hon. Gentleman mean houses"?

Mr. Bevins: No. If the hon. and learned Member will allow me to explain, I said that it would be possible in these circumstances for properties to be valued at their current values—current, shall we say, in 1959, 1960 or 1961, or whenever the time happened to be. I added that that was so because inclusion at current values is in accordance with rating law. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to say so, he must not confuse that with the existing pattern of rating, for example, for private houses. I am simply saying what the law is, as opposed to the general practice of the valuation office, which is an entirely separate matter.

Mr. Mitchison: May I assume that the hon. Gentleman's remarks must be taken as not relating to houses?

Mr. Bevins: Broadly speaking, yes, because I do not think that within the confines of the Amendment there would be a great deal of point in relating it to house property.
I was going on to say that the Amendment would, therefore, to a limited extent, open the door to a partial revaluation which would penalise certain ratepayers.
The area of such a revaluation might well be very small. I should not care to express an opinion on how wide it might go, because that clearly would depend on the number of new and altered properties which needed either assessment or reassessment during the period 1959 or 1963, when the next valuation lists are due.
It would also depend to some extent on the number of industrial hereditaments whose assessments are liable to be affected by a new plant and machinery order which will presently be made following the report of the Ritson Committee.
I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member for Islington, North has put forward the Amendment. It is a relatively narrow one, but it embodies the same defect as some of the earlier Amendments, notably that it would lead to a differential basis of assessment for certain properties.

Mr. Mitchison: I am becoming confused. I am not certain whether the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary have not succeeded in catching their own tails. At present, they are adhering passionately to what they describe as an ambiguous state of affairs. It is not as latent and ambiguous as all that, because it is already reflected in existing lists. When it is suggested that in relation to all that the local authority might be allowed to make a proposal, we are told that that is unnecessary. The Parliamentary Secretary tells us that local authorities have the right to object within narrow limits, and that is enough for them.
That passes my understanding. Why should it be right for local authorities to be allowed to object within narrow limits if they are unable to make a proposal which would enlarge the limits of the resulting valuation?

Mr. Bevins: That is very simply answered, because the right of objection does not in any sense, nor can it ever, give the rating authority the right to seek or to obtain an assessment based on current rental values, whereas if they were entitled to make a proposal in those circumstances it might lead to that result.

Mr. Mitchison: With respect, that is not so. The local authority may appear and object within the limits which the Parliamentary Secretary indicated. It might say that the right figure is so and so. What relation that will have to revaluation or no revaluation will depend on what the limits are, that is to say, on what the proposals before the valuation court are.
Therefore, it is quite possible, if the proposals are right, for anything to ha-

pen. All that happens is that, if the proposals are not right, the Parliamentary Secretary achieves his object and the rating authority is effectively gagged. What happens is that it is made to depend on the proposals brought forward by the valuation officer, or perhaps by the owner, too.
I become very puzzled when we are told that the valuation officer will pay great regard to the opinions of local authorities. He may not agree with them. That is the kind of case that we have in mind in the Amendments. If he does not agree with them, what will happen? He will have made his proposal. That Is what the Amendment assumes. He will, no doubt, have consulted the local authority beforehand. Apart from any circular that may be sent to valuation officers, that is a normal and reasonable practice. I cannot think that circulars will make any very great difference. If he does his job he will do that anyhow.
Let us assume that he has done that. What is the next stage? There was a passage in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the last Amendment which indicated that steps would be taken for the valuation officer to put forward proposals in which he did not believe in order that the views of the local authority might he represented. What are we to have? Are we to have the valuation officer's proposal and then the valuation officer's bogus proposal put forward at the instance of the rating authority? Or would the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend like to consider, since they are so anxious to gag local authorities, having that Scandinavian institution an Ombudsman to put up some of these cases, or a local authority advocate, or someone of that sort?
I do not know how it will be done. What is the sense of refusing to allow the local authority to make a proposal about an hereditament when there has already been a proposal by the valuation officer and when the whole ambiguity will be applied one way or another anyhow? Why should not the local authority be allowed to make a proposal when the valuation officer has made one?
I think that this is a very harsh view of rating authorities. It may occur in the


case of houses, as it may occur in the case of industrial and other hereditaments. There are an infinity of circumstances. It is more probable in the case of industrial hereditaments. It is not confined to them. Yet all that the Parliamentary Secretary can advise the Committee is to reject the whole of a minor, but very sensible, Amendment on grounds which seem to me to leave all the difficulties he apprehends equally likely to happen. His advice would merely ensure that rating authorities once again will be gagged, when other people in these cases have voices.

Mr. Diamond: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), if only for the clarity and fluency with which he expressed his arguments, which were in such marked contradistinction to the way in which the Minister spoke on the last Amendment. The Minister said then that he did not understand all this and that it was a very difficult and complicated matter. Having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, I hope that the Minister will understand a good deal more about it and appreciate what clarity can be expressed once one has done one's homework and mastered the topic.
There is no point in my appealing to my hon. and learned Friend to press this to a Division, because to what effect are our arguments or the merits of the case against the fluency and persuasiveness of the right hon. Gentleman? You were not in the Chair, Sir Norman, earlier, but all the arguments from both sides of the Committee—with the sole exception of that of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) — were in favour of the Amendment then under discussion. The Minister then made a lot of statements, totally irrelevant to the dismissal of that Amendment, with the result, in the Division Lobby that you know. Therefore, as I say, there is not much point in appealing to my hon. and learned Friend to press this to a Division, even though he has made an absolute case.
The previous Amendment was turned down solely on the ground that it would open up the possibility—that had been touched upon in Sheffield and, I gather, is now being canvassed in Hertfordshire—of a partial revaluation. The earlier Amendment was turned down on the ground that the local authority would

have the opportunity of revising upwards the assessments for a large number of hereditaments within its area.
This Amendment could affect only a very small and limited number of cases where the initiative had been taken by the valuation officers. It cannot, in any circumstances, be held to contravene principles laid down only half an hour ago by the Minister. In those circumstances, why must the Government persist in this attitude of destroying the rights of the local authorities down to the smallest vestige that is left to them at the moment? Why must they insist on denying to the local authorities the right, for which they unanimously ask, to have some say in the rating within their own areas? This is a small matter. It could not possibly do damage to the revenue, or create inequity on a large scale, and it is something that the Government ought to grant.
I do not follow the argument that because a central Government Department is unable to carry out its responsibilities at once and so has to ask for a delay of two years, every local authority should have its right permanently reduced so as to suit the convenience of that Department. In those circumstances, it will inevitably be said that Whitehall is all-important, and that the local authority —and the local man—is completely disregarded by Parliament, and particularly by the Government. That will inevitably come about if this small Amendment, which seeks only to give the local authority a reasonable say in cases where the initiative has been taken by the valuation officer, is refused.
Once again, I appeal to the Government. Cannot they reconsider this, even if only in this very small area? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North is not committed to the wording. It is the principle that matters, and that principle is that local authorities should have some right to make their views felt where the initiative is taken by the valuation officer—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Or by the occupier.

Mr. Diamond: Or by the occupier. We therefore ask that this matter should be reconsidered, even if my hon. Friend's words are not acceptable.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Reynolds: I cannot accept the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. In effect, what he is saying is that rating authorities are so stupid that if, because of some structural alteration, there were just one proposal from the valuation officer making, say, a 10 per cent. increase in the rateable value of a shop in the centre of the main street, a rating authority, will try to double the valuation of the shop, because that happened to be the current rental value—and would do so in complete isolation from every other shop in the main street and in the borough.
In the type of case mentioned in Sheffield, Liverpool and other places, the rating authority has not picked out one shop only, but every shop in the main street, for instance, and, if possible, every shop in its area. I do not think that any rating authority would be so silly as to try to carry out a partial revaluation of the kind that the Parliamentary Secretary says has to be guarded against by weakening, as the Bill does, the objecting powers of rating authorities in regard to valuation officers' proposals.
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that acceptance of the Amendment might lead to such partial revaluations as he has mentioned, I can tell him that there are others that would be just as much out of Alice in Wonderland as those he has suggested. There is the tenant who is being evicted by his landlord. If he wishes to be spiteful, and make it more awkward for the landlord to let the house, the tenant can put in a proposal for a partial revaluation.
On the other hand, the owner of the property may wish to be awkward to the tenant and put forward a proposal substantially to increase the rateable value of the property, and we are told that if he can substantiate it, his proposal will have to be accepted by the valuation court. Again, provided the property is not included in the list, the local authorities can make a proposal based on current rental values instead of on those of 195556. I am not impressed by the three cases I have just stated, but they are just as valid and useful instances as those put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary, they are just as likely to happen—and they are just as ridiculous.
I do not think that we have had any answer that stands up to close examination. The hon. Gentleman's reply does, however, show the determination of someone, whom the Minister is obviously supporting, to strip local rating authorities of as much of their powers as possible, and the obvious fact that this Amendment will not be accepted confirms that view.

Mr. Bevins: Though I do not wish to detain the Committee, I should not like this discussion to finish by leaving the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) with the impression that the Government are being stiff-necked. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) asked the pointed question: what is the objection, in these circumstances, to a rating authority making a proposal? The simple and short answer is that although, as I said before, there is no doubt that inclusion at current values is in accordance with the law, there is equally no question—as I am sure hon. Members on both sides will agree—that inclusion of new properties according to the tone of the list—that is, 1956 values—is fairer and more equitable, and applies, with all respect to the hon. Member for Islington, North, whether we are dealing with the odd shop or odd office, or, as in Sheffield, with several thousand properties.
As long as we have a differential as between the tone of the 1956 list and current values the thing is unjust. It is as simple as that—

Mr. Diamond: Will the hon. Gentleman answer this question? Once this inconsistency has been removed—namely, by 1963, when we have the revaluation —and the 1963 " tone," as he calls it, corresponds with the 1963 current valuation, is it the Government's intention to restore these powers to local authorities?

Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend earlier made it clear that the whole question of whether there should be legislative provision governing either current value or the tone of the last list as being the thing that mattered, would be considered between now and the next revaluation. As my right hon. Friend said, that is an obscurity that has to be cleared up as soon as possible.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, at the end to add:
(5) This section shall come into force on the day when the Minister of Housing and Local Government declares in a report laid before Parliament that he is satisfied that adequate arrangements have been made between all persons in occupation of sewers having diameters of more than twelve feet and the rating authorities concerned for the payment by those persons to those authorities of sums equivalent to those which would have been so payable as rates, if subsection (2) of section nine of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, had not been enacted.
The Amendment is designed to add a new subsection in the terms set out. If I may say so, the Amendment is a tribute to the drafting skill of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). His ingenuity has achieved dimensions almost as large as the principal sewers to which the Amendment relates.

Mr. Diamond: On a point of drafting, could my hon. and learned Friend tell me, with his authority, whether as a matter of construction, the word " diameters " relates to the sewers or the persons?

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I hope that my hon. Friend will not treat this matter as one for levity. It is my intention to invite the Committee to give it most serious consideration. I will merely say that in the area through which these outfall sewers run I am not aware of anyone having a diameter of more than 12 feet.

Mr. Mitchison: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that Daniel Lambert lived in Loughborough, not East London?

Mr. Elwyn Jones: That seems to be a most unhelpful intervention, if I may say so.
The Committee will have seen that the terms of the Amendment are general and relate to sewers anywhere having diameters of more than 12 feet, but it is no secret, I think, that the authorities principally affected by the proposed Amendment are those through which the northern and southern outfall sewers of the London County Council run. The Amendment is of considerable importance, first of all, because of its financial importance to those authorities, and, in particular, to West Ham. Secondly, it is of considerable Parliamentary import-

ance by reason of the fact that a precise undertaking was given by the Government, when the 1955 Rating and Valuation Bill was debated, that they would see to it that an Amendment was introduced to that Bill to exclude the outfall sewers of the London County Council from its derating provisions. I fear that we are faced here with what has proved, in the event, to have been an undertaking which the Government have not honored in the subsequent developments relating to this matter.
The reasons that the Government felt it proper to give that pledge in most precise and explicit terms, as I shall show in a moment, were overwhelming. The sewer in question—there are actually the northern and southern London outfall sewers—is a Leviathan among sewers. Its average height above the surrounding land is 21 feet. To say that one could run a coach and four through it would be no exaggeation, though whether anyone should seek to run a coach and four through it is an entirely different matter. It runs across the whole width of West Ham, towering over the houses on each side of it like some distended Chinese wall. It stands on a vast raised embankment. It certainly cannot be said of this part of my constituency that it is flowing with milk and honey. In an earlier debate on this matter, the sewer was described as a monstrosity, and a monstrosity it certainly is. I have been alarmed to be told today that its capacity is actually to be increased. I find that a most alarming prospect.
However, so long as the authorities concerned—I speak of West Ham, in particular--were deriving some rates, some financial benefit, out of it, the somewhat bitter pill was to a certain extent sweetened—if that is not too unattractive an analogy in the circumstances. Before the 1955 Act, the boroughs concerned, namely, those through which the sewer went drew rate income from the London County Council, the owner of the sewer. The London County Council was quite prepared to pay the amount involved and everybody was perfectly happy. There then descended upon the quite happy relationship between all the authorities concerned a sudden attack of zeal for uniformity in Whitehall.
The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin), who is now Parliamen-


tary Secretary to the Ministry of Power and whom I am very glad to see sitting on the Government Front Bench—I hope that his view has not changed as a result of that elevation —described the proposal at that time as
a quite unnecessary piece of Departmental tidying up the only effect of which would be to annoy everybody and do a grave injustice to a borough which has many problems." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 1144–5.]
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is of the same view today and that sitting alongside the Minister as he is now, he will prod the right hon. Gentleman, not physically immediately, but mentally, and by his inimitable persuasion make him see the reason for the Amendment, which is designed to do away with this intrusion, an intrusion which has brought disturbance instead of adding to the ease of performance of local government functions.
The effect of this passion for uniformity upon West Ham was immediate. It meant a loss of rate income of about £27,000. Because the Government were, no doubt, impressed by the arguments of their own supporters and, conceivably, even by the arguments of those on this side, on 6th July, 1955, during the recommittal proceedings on the Bill, they accepted an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), to provide that the derating subsection should not apply to the outfall sewers of the London County Council.
The then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said that various researches had been made into the position, adding:
In the light of my remarks, I therefore interpret the discoveries which we have made as meaning that we should accept this Amendment.
I think that that acceptance came after a visit the day before to the monstrosity in question by the now Minister of Defence, who, having seen it, realised that something should be done about compensation to West Ham for having it at all.
6.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary said:
…we should accept the Amendment. That we shall do. Perhaps I should add that the term the outfall sewers of the London County Council ' is not a sufficiently distinctive definition. It does not make it absolutely clear that the Amendment relates to the portion above the ground. Perhaps we could be

allowed to do something about the wording, which we ill undertake to do. Otherwise, we accept the Amendment.
Then my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), taking no risks and ensuring that the situation was thoroughly and effectively tied up, said:
The hon. Gentleman will remember that there are two sewers, each, I gather, equally gigantic and peculiar. One is the northern, and the other the southern outfall. I take it he will agree that his undertaking extends to both outfalls." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 1147.]
In reply the Parliamentary Secretary said, " Yes ", an affirmative without any qualification. Then numerous congratulatory speeches were made from this side of the House in the confident expectation that the Government would honour their pledge.
Alas, that did not happen. Quailing before a minor criticism in another place, the Government withdrew their undertaking and did not fulfill it. I apologies for referring again to my own constituency, and I do so only because it was the one most directly affected financially, but it then became necessary for West Ham and the boroughs concerned to go cap in hand to the L.C.C. Happily, that distinguished authority dealt most generously with the situation and, indeed, recompensed West Ham for its financial loss. That is a purely temporary arrangement. It is hoped that the L.C.C. will continue to behave with similar generosity in future, but the position has been left in a very unsanitary state.
The Ministry estimates that the loss of rateable income to West Ham by reason of its own creation in the way of derating is in excess of £22,000. In the first period after the introduction of the new Measure, the Exchequer Equalization Grant admittedly dealt with the situation, but there is no certainty that that will happen again in future.
The real crux of the complaint of the authorities concerned is this. They prefer to have their own finances resting fairly and squarely on rateable value, on their own capacity to raise the finance which they need and on the certainties which known chargeable rates give them to the uncertainties of Exchequer grants, which, after all, can be changed almost without notice at the wish of the Government or Parliament.
That is the broad principle of the matter, but what is required now is that the Government shall deal with the situation and put it in order and not leave a harassed community like West Ham, which bore the brunt of much of the blitz and lost about one-third of its rate-able value as a result, to depend upon the generosity of another great public authority which has strict limits upon the extent to which generosity can go. I appreciate the difficulties of the L.C.C. It has not unlimited powers to put its hand in its pocket.
I therefore ask the Minister to look at this problem again and to make good by a suitable statement the breach of undertaking which has so lamentably arisen in the last three years.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I should like to add a few words in support of the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones). As he has rightly said, this Amendment arises from a promise given by the previous Minister during Second Reading, in Committee and on recomittal of the 1955 Bill. It arises from an Amendment which I had the pleasure to move on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South and other Members for the East End part of London. The Minister definitely gave us a promise that this matter would be dealt with. It is true that he did not accept the wording of the Amendment, which was only because of a technical difficulty, but he accepted the principle of it. I believe that it was only because of the difficulty which arose in another place that the Minister backed out of implementing the pledge which he gave.
The Amendment has been very ably drawn up by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me when I say that we are not wedded to the wording of the Amendment. If the Minister again says that he cannot agree to accept the wording, but will put something into the Bill to cover the position which affects mainly West Ham, although, as my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate, other boroughs, such as East Ham and Poplar, are affected, we shall be satisfied.
It is not only a question of West Ham having lost £20,000 to £23,000 in rateable income, although that is a very severe

blow to a local authority which lost over one-third of its rateable income because of loss of hereditaments due to the war, but there is the additional matter that there are about 30 acres of land which are not only unusable but a complete eyesore to the local residents.
This huge sewer has mounds of earth piled upon it. It is impossible to build upon it for obvious reasons. It is impossible to do anything with it although the L.C.C. — and I pay it a tribute—try to make it as pleasant as possible. [An HON. MEMBER: " Where is it? "] One cannot miss it. If, on one of your journeys, Sir Norman, you go by car down the main Barking by-pass, you will come to the Beckton gas works, but before you approach that works this huge monstrosity, an eyesore—I do not know how one can describe it—will loom before your eves and you will immediately wonder what it is. All the local residents ask what it is, but they have to put up with the difficulty and the eyesore of this knowing that under the previous Act, the local authority is debarred from drawing a rate income from it and has no possible means of making up the deficiency.
I again pay tribute to the London County Council, which has been kind, helpful and generous and, we hope, will continue to be. At the time, however, the London County Council did not want any change. It paid the rate—I will not say willingly, because no authority pays anything willingly. At least, the L.C.C. did not make any objection. It paid the rate and carried on and subsequently, by joint negotiation and agreement, has come to reasonable terms. We have no certainty, however, that the L.C.C. always will continue in that generous frame of mind. All we ask is that some legislative proposal should be contained within the Bill, when it becomes an Act, to give to the local borough council in West Ham the opportunity of recouping its loss.
When the matter was debated both on Second Reading, in Committee and on recommittal of the former Bill, not one hon. Member, in any part of the House, was in opposition. Hon. Members who had great knowledge of and association with the L.C.C., and who were members of it, also spoke—of course, in their personal capacity—and said that they, too, would want to support the principle. They did not, of course, commit the L.C.C. —they had no power to do so—


but not one hon. Member opposed the idea. The then Minister was sympathetic—and we paid tribute to him—ven before he gave his pledge.
I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend has paid tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. We in West Ham pay him tribute because he does much great laudable and charitable work there. We are appreciative of his work on behalf of the boys and youths of the area. I believe that he still lives there and is a constituent of my hon. and learned Friend, although, unfortunately, he does not vote for him. The hon. Gentleman spoke eloquently in favour of the Amendment to the former Bill. I appreciate that he cannot speak here today, but I am quite sure that if I were to see him outside and had a private chat with him he would, without committing his Government or the Minister, say that he had not changed his view in the slightest. Hence I am asking the Minister, in support of my hon. and learned Friend, to try to do something to help us.
So often in the House and in Committee we have had words of sympathy and understanding and the promise of help and assistance for this sorely-tried council of West Ham. We have suffered terribly. We can ill afford to lose any rate income. We hope that the Minister will give a pledge to implement his promise.
6.45 p.m.
I believe that the Government wanted to help us on the last occasion, but that a technical difficulty arose in another place and at that time it was almost impossible for them to overcome it. Here is a way in which the Government can do both things. The Minister could say that the Government will implement their promise by including the Amendment, which does not commit the Minister too much except to say that he should get a full and complete report and put it before us before these proposals become operative and get an understanding that there will be a rearrangement of the finances so that all parties to the discussions are satisfied with the outcome.
Surely that is a reasonable suggestion. In view of the fact that we know that in the past the Departments concerned and the Minister's predecessors have supported our plea, I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment with confidence that the Minister will accept its principle.

Mr. H. Brooke: I know these outfall sewers— once seen never forgotten. I have not been a member of the London County Council for ten years without getting some acquaintance with the drainage system of London. If there is any way in which I can use my good offices in getting this problem settled once and for all, I shall be only too glad. The one thing of which I am certain is that the best way would not ET to write the Amendment into the Bill, which deals with rather wider issues.
For one thing, we would need to be certain whether the 12 ft. diameter applied to the aldermen or to the sewers. I take it that it applies to the sewers. That is one ambiguity. I am advised —perhaps the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) will be able to help— that there is doubt whether the southern outfall sewer reaches a diameter of 12 ft. Therefore, whatever we are doing, let us get it right.
As the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) and the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) have said, my predecessor, now my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defense, told the House that he wished to deal with this matter, that he thought the overgrown portions of these sewers should be rated and that the idea was to make an Amendment to the 1955 Bill when it reached another place. When it reached another place Amendments were put down, but a noble Lord—he sat on the Opposition side—called attention to the fact that those Amendments would hybridize the Bill. There was, I think, common agreement that it would be intolerable so to delay the passing of the Bill and so for that reason action was not taken.
The Bill went through unamended. I understand that there were conversations between the borough councils concerned and the London County Council which resulted in a settlement, which the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South was good enough to describe as generous. In the Amendment, he asks only for "adequate arrangements." I am not sure that he has chosen those words carefully enough; because he might find that there was a monetary loss rather than gain if the rather elaborate procedure outlined in the Amendment were to take effect.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: The criticism of the present arrangements is that they are merely temporary and on a year to year basis. That is the main complaint. Secondly, although in the first year or two the arrangements have proved financially satisfactory in the sense that the London County Council and the West Ham Council have agreed an appropriate figure, it does not by any means follow, in view of the ups and downs of local government finance, that it will be satisfactory hereafter.

Mr. Brooke: I quite appreciate that this arrangement is an ad hoc one. I can well understand the feeling among the boroughs concerned that it would be better if it could be put on to a firm and permanent basis.
I am quite sure, at the same time, that hon. Members realize the difficulty which the Government have been in. To amend any Government Bill with specific reference to those two sewers would turn it into a hybrid Bill. This ingenious method of bringing it before the Committee has been thought of, but if I were to hazard a guess I should doubt whether the hon. Members who devised or moved this Amendment seriously believed that it was likely to be accepted by the Committee. The question is: what is the best way of handling it?

Mr. Mitchison: May I say one thing in no very critical spirit. I respectfully agree that if we mentioned the London outfall sewers we would immediately make it a hybridized Bill and there may be similar difficulties if we were to refer to Daniel Lambert in a specific piece of legislation. This Amendment, however, would not hybridize the Bill or it would not have been called. Consequently, we should get exactly the same result by referring to the category of large sewers—whether 12ft. is quite right I would not venture to say—but there is no real difficulty from the hybridizing point of view. I feel that the Government are a little frightened about that, perhaps unnecessarily.

Mr. Brooke: I was not suggesting that the Amendment would hybridize the Bill. The trouble is that I am not at all sure that the Amendment would get it right. There is some uncertainty about the diameter of the southern if not the northern outfall sewer. I certainly cannot come

to the Committee and give an assurance that these are the only two sewers in England and Wales of this outsize. So I say, let us be sure that as we handle this we do it in the right way.
I myself would have thought that the most satisfactory way would be if there should be further discussions between the borough councils concerned there are several beyond those mentioned today—and the London County Council and my hope would be that those discussions might have the outcome of producing some plan which maybe could be put into a London County Council General Powers Bill.
It is certainly not for me to seek to dictate to the London County Council what it should put into its Bill, but I think that there have been previous occasions when to get one of these local matters settled it has been done by private Bill procedure. It would be difficult for the Government to take the initiative at the present time, more especially as there is a Royal Commission on Local Government of Greater London in being.
Although I do not say that one would seriously prejudice the conclusions of that Royal Commission by legislating about two particular sewers, nevertheless we are not anxious at the moment to initiate London local government legislation. Certainly, if there is any way in which I can use my good offices to bring about a permanent agreement I shall be at everyone's service. I would greatly hope that renewed conversations might be possible between the London County Council and the borough councils concerned to see whether a firm basis could be arrived at which could, if necessary be enacted in private legislation.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: I am happy to be able to give an assurance to the Committee which I think will be useful this evening. To some extent I was not personally involved in this matter until after the Second Reading.
What happened was that the London County Council received an undertaking from the Minister that the outfall sewers would be accepted. Therefore, none of us was on our guard. Then certain Members came rushing out of the House and in great consternation telephoned the London County Council because everyone was taken by complete surprise.
After that, the Council was extremely concerned. Here was a Bill proposing to exempt one authority from the general provisions of an Act of Parliament. The Council did not think that that was right. It has always been prepared to obey the terms of any Act of Parliament, but it felt that for an authority to be deliberately excluded from receiving certain rates would mean that the ratepayers would have to foot a bill which they would not otherwise have to foot.
Therefore, the Council got busy and was able to sustain its plea I am sure, quite rightly—but when the Minister attempted to introduce an Amendment into the Bill it was submitted that he was hybridising it and that the Bill was becoming part public and part private. Therefore, the Minister would not have been able to go ahead without very long delay. The Council was not dissatisfied with that decision. It recognised the nature of the sewers at the northern and southern outfalls. It knows that they are eyesores and, also, that the ground is completely sterilised. I doubt whether anyone would ever want to build in the vicinity of the Beckton gasworks. One has only to smell it to recognise that the gasworks is a far greater menace to that area than the whole of the northern out-fall sewer. We recognise these things and, therefore, it was with great pleasure that the Council accepted the invitation of the Minister to meet representatives of the affected districts. It expressed its willingness to try to make up to those districts the actual loss that they would have sustained.
There was, however, a point of difference between the Council and the local authorities concerned. As far as we can gather, they all put very great store indeed upon their rateable value. They wanted property there from which they could draw rates, whereas all the County Council thought of was conceding to them what the local authorities would actually lose. It was pointed out that in making the L.C.C. pay they would relieve the Government of, I think, £60,000 by way of reduction of the amount of the equalisation grant which they would have had to pay. It was because of the uncertainty as to the situation of the equalisation grant after the new arrangements came into being that this position has been taken.
I think that I can help the Committee this evening because a letter has just come to the County Council asking for further talks in order to put the matter on a permanent basis. The Council is now in the process of trying to arrange talks. The Committee has recognised the generosity of the Council. I think that it can rely on that continued generosity and that if the Amendment were withdrawn the Committee would have no reason to regret it.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I hesitate to interfere in these cordial and happy relations between the London County Council and the Metropolitan boroughs. They are always an event. I say simply that as between the local authorities concerned it seems to me, from the point of view of annual revenue and expenditure, that the substantial question is whether other ratepayers in London should contribute towards a burden that otherwise would fall on the ratepayers in these boroughs. That is the way it works out in the long run.
There is a rather more serious point. On the whole, I would not expect sewers to improve enormously in value. I can well understand the borough authorities feeling that if they had a choice in the matter they would prefer to have the acreage with possibilities of development there than have the space occupied by a sewer, but I do not want to take sides too far in that transaction. We certainly hope that nothing said in this Committee will interfere with arrangements which I hope will be satisfactory to both sets of authorities.
I am concerned, however, with the Government's pledge in this matter. It was a perfectly definite promise that these sewers should be derated. I found some difficulty in ascertaining the diameter and I was not surprised to hear the Minister say that he was not quite sure of it exactly, because the Parliamentary Secretary of the day said on 6th July, 1955:
There has never been a survey of our sewers—there is no complete record of their sizes, heights and so on—but I think that it is firmly established that there is no sewer comparable in size with this."—
I think that he meant the northern outfall sewer.
There are 48-inch sewers running over-ground in various parts but they are Lilliputian


compared with this one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 1147.]
I am not certain about the relationship of Lilliput with the rest of the world, hut I should have thought that the description of a 48-inch sewer as Lilliputian compared with a 12-ft. sewer was about right. These sewers are very exceptional sewers. They occupy an exceptional amount of ground and remove if derated, or even if rated, quite an exceptional amount of rateable value from the boroughs in question. Naturally, those boroughs welcomed the Government's pledge to introduce legislation to provide for sewers to be rated, to the extent that sewers are rateable. There is no particular point about that today.
When this matter got to another place, the Government ran from the prospect of hybridising the Bill. I never took the view that there was the least need for it. These are exceptional sewers and there was not the least difficulty in defining them as a class of sewers of which these two sewers would be the only representatives. Therefore, I felt that the Government should have carried out their pledge at that time. There was no real reason why they should have dropped it, as they did.
It is not satisfactory that things should go on indefinitely as they are. There are too many chances about this. I dismiss as beyond the realms of possibility that London County Council might ever be controlled by the Tory Party, but who knows what may happen? There may be changes in the other rateable values in the boroughs which would make the present arrangements inadequate, and the arrangements get tied up and rather confused with the question of Exchequer grants. I did not follow, and do not pretend to follow, the way in which the effect of the Exchequer grant has been treated in the adjustment between the boroughs and London County Council, but I say to the Government that, apart from anything else, they should carry out this pledge. There is no reason why they should not.
The Government could have introduced it in the Bill if they had drawn the Bill in a rather wider form. At any rate. they put into the Bill one point which we have discussed today that did not seem

to have much connection at first sight with the rest of the Bill. They could have put this matter into the Bill as well. It is the first opportunity that they have had since the pledge was given. We on this side of the Committee cannot do it, because the Bill as it stands would not allow us to table a simple Amendment to give effect to the pledge. But the Government can do it. I believe that they would need a supplementary Financial Resolution. There is no difficulty about that. No. 2 Financial Resolutions are only too common. I assure the Government that on our side we should not oppose such a Resolution and I cannot imagine that anybody would object to a Government pledge being carried out.
I do not want to stand up here and sound too solemn and priggish for words, but, really, Government pledges are very serious matters and this pledge was given on a matter of considerable local importance and in relation to considerable sums of money. The present Minister and his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary were not the Ministers at the time. They know perfectly well that I am not saying anything against them, or against the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary of the day, but the pledge was given firmly on behalf of the Government and dropped for a quite inadequate reason. The matter ought not to be left simply to arrangements made between the parties concerned, however satisfactory those arrangements may be for the moment. There ought to be the certainty in it that there would have been if the pledge had been carried out and put in statutory form.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who, I am sure, would be one of the first people in the world to appreciate the importance of Government pledges in matters of this sort, will reconsider the question and see whether he cannot carry out the pledge. It would be quite simple. There would be no opposition as far as I know, and I would hope that he would take the opportunity of carrying it out, perhaps in another place where the unfortunate trouble began.

Mr. Rippon: I wish that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) had hesitated a little longer before he intervened in a matter which.
I think, could have been settled quite amicably between the boroughs concerned and the London County Council. He has raised unnecessarily the point that there has been some degree of breach of faith and that the Government gave a pledge which they subsequently failed to honour.
The Committee is in a reminiscent mood. As I listened to the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) I was tempted to echo the words of the song from " Gigi "--" Ah, I remember well ". Fortunately, on this occasion 1 think that our memories are more in harmony. No one passing through West Ham could fail to notice this sewer. I am inclined to think that after the then Minister drove past it he was very impressed by arguments put forward in the House of Commons, with the result that an undertaking was given. Hon. Members on both sides said that the Minister had been sympathetic. Then, as the hon. Lady pointed out. it was the London County Council. Socialist-controlled, that raised the matter of hybridisation.

Mr. Mitchison: The London County Council is not a member of another place.

Mr. Rippon: The London County Council raised the question and canvassed it in the way local authorities canvass these matters, and then I believe that in another place a noble Lord raised it. If the London County Council had been a Conservative-controlled council, no doubt we should never have heard of the point at all. But, as the hon. Lady said, the discussions between the London County Council and representatives of the boroughs, at which I was present. were very amicable. It was realised by the Ministry, by the London County Council, and by the boroughs that something would have to be agreed, otherwise We should have to go through all the difficulties of legislation. As a result, a settlement was reached which was satisfactory at that time. No doubt the situation changes from time to time, but I should have thought the Committee would have been content with the assurance of the hon. Lady that the London County Council will hear further representations from the boroughs and try to give effect to the spirit of the undertaking.
It might well be that this should be dealt with by a Private Bill, but if we can achieve the same result by voluntary agreement, and it is satisfactory to all parties, so much the better. We have not created a situation in which it is fair for the hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that there has been any breach of faith on the part of anybody, and to carry out a pledge in the form of legislation when the same result can be achieved by voluntary action seems to me to be foolish.

Mr. Mitchison: I must reply in plain English to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon). The Government gave a pledge in this case; the Government have not carried it out. The hon. Gentleman used the words " a breach of faith ". All I am saying is that the Government have broken their pledge and that they should carry it out and not leave it broken.
Important as these matters may be to such austere and dignified bodies as the London County Council and the borough councils concerned, and even though the sewers have a certain comic aspect, there is also a public question involved. If the Government of the day give a pledge to amend an Act in a certain sense—that is to say, to legislate in that sense—they are not released from that pledge by other arrangements which may be made between the parties concerned when they have already broken their pledge. The hon. Gentleman must really not treat this matter in that way. There is a question of what is right and what is wrong in respect of Government pledges.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I do not wish to keep the Committee long, but as I was present at some of the other debates on the subject I think that we are entitled to call attention to the failure to keep the pledge which was given, especially when it is remembered that the result of not doing so would probably mean the saving of a lot of Government money. 1 do not want to be too suspicious, but that probably had some influence on what has happened.
For my sins I was for some years responsible for sewers and I know what horrible things they are too look at. However, they were much more horrible one night after a German bomb had dropped on them and spread about a great deal of sewage which took us days and days


to clear away before we could clean the houses and streets. I have no doubt that the local authorities feel strongly through whose areas sewers run—and in East Ham they are all above ground, unfortunately, because it is impossible to put them underground and get a natural flow by gravitation. This all adds to the ugliness and inconvenience, and to the sterilisation of a large amount of land on which building could otherwise take place.
I am glad to hear that in spite of the failure of the Government of the day to keep the pledge given, the L.C.C., with its well-known readiness to co-operate with other local authorities in the area. has been ready to make an arrangement which, while I will not say that it satisfied East Ham, will, at any rate, remove some of its strong feelings on this matter. I hope this will be regularised in future so that it does not have to be the subject of discussion continually. It is true that the trouble was caused largely because of the failure of the Government of the day to honour an undertaking given when this matter came up under a previous Minister. I think that that is worth saying.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for the way in which they have underlined the importance of the principle that when a Government have given specific undertakings, they should honour them. There is no allegation of breach of faith on the part of any individual Minister concerned, but where so precise and specific an undertaking was given, compliance with which would have avoided much of the difficulty, it is regrettable that more was not done.
I confess that I speak with no authority on the question of hybridisation, and I have been impressed by the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I cannot believe that the skill and ingenuity of those advising the Minister on these matters would have been incapable of coping with the difficult problem which arose.
Frankly, the boroughs concerned would prefer a Government Measure now to re-rate these sewers and I think that could be done. Having said that, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham

(Mrs. Corbet) will not think me ungenerous, in view of her most cooperative and helpful observations on behalf of the London County Council. That kindly intervention will give great comfort in my constituency of West Ham.
Nevertheless, 1 ask the Minister whether he cannot look at this matter again, in the hope that by suitable legislative arrangements he can take the question out of the domain of private arrangements between authorities. This is fairly and squarely a responsibility of Government, and, accordingly, I hope that, sympathetic as he has been in this debate, he will feel able to look at the problem again.

Mr. Lewis: Before the Amendment is disposed of, may I add my support to the plea of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) to the Minister to add to his sympathetic words and his offer to use his good offices in any way possible in the discussions and negotiations, if called upon. Will the right hon. Gentleman go one step further and accept the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) by saying that he will himself take the first opportunity that he can to deal with this matter by legislation, if not in this Bill?
If he could go so far, it would satisfy both my hon. and learned Friends, and I see no reason why the Minister should not take that one step further, because he is with us in principle. He says that he and his Government will support the idea behind the Amendment. Without committing himself to a date, without committing himself even to the actual Measure, all he need do is to say that at the first opportunity open to him he will include in a Bill a Clause or subsection dealing with this problem. If he could do that, we would be satisfied.

Mr. H. Brooke: It has already become apparent that there are certain difficulties about including provisions for these sewers in a Government Bill. I have already said that I shall be perfectly prepared to use my good offices if I can he helpful in any way in bringing this matter to a conclusion. The best thing would be if the conversations, which I understand would be welcome to both sides, were to take place.

Mr. Mitchison: I share the right hon. Gentleman's hopes that the conversations will come to a satisfactory conclusion and I am sure that my hon. Friends will thank the right hon. Gentleman for promising to use his good offices. He knows that there is nothing personal in this when I say that I cannot regard that as a proper discharge of the Government's original pledge.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(POSTPONEMENT OF TERMINA TION OR REDUCTION OF RELIEF FOR CHARITABLE AND OTHER ORGANISA TIONS.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 2. line 18, to leave out " year 196263 " and to insert " appointed year".
With your permission, Sir Norman, and for the convenience of the Commitee, the next three Amendments might also be taken together. They are those in page 2, line 19, leave out year 196263 " and insert " appointed year "; in line 23, leave out " year 196263 " and insert " appointed year " and in line 25. leave out " sixty-two " and add:
sixty or such subsequent year (not later than the year beginning with the first day of April, nineteen hundred and sixty-two) as by an order in the form of a statutory instrument the Minister of Housing and Local Government may from time to time appoint:
Provided that no such order shall be made within the last six months of a year, or so as to appoint any year other than the year next following the year in which the order is made, or unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
These Amendments are all associated with Section 8 of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955. which gave power for the rates of charitable institutions to be frozen at the level of the previous year. If the revaluation resulted in those institutions having to pay less they paid less, but if the revaluation meant that they would pay more then Section 8 fixed the rate at the previous year's level. The limitation continued until the local authority concerned gave notice at a subsequent date that it would no longer maintain the limitation.
That provision has had a detrimental effect on the revenue of many local authorities. Cambridge and other university towns and other places with other types of institutions have found their

rateable incomes seriously reduced. It is true that the charities do not want to pay more rates. On Second Reading the Minister informed us that a Departmental Committee had been set up under the chairmanship of Sir Frederick Pritchard, and he said that the report of that Committee might be made within a few weeks. However, so far as I know that report is not yet available.
The purpose of this group of Amendments is that instead of the limitation of Section 8 lasting until 196263 it should last until only 1960. By then, if the Pritchard Committee had reported and there were no fresh legislation to deal with the problem, the Minister of the day would have to come to Parliament each year and justify the continuance of this position.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will concede our request, because the Minister himself said on Second Reading that the inclusion of the provision for the year 196263 did not necessarily mean that the limitation would automatically run until then. He said that if legislation or some arrangement to deal with the problem came before that time. then the limitation would be withdrawn. After 1960, if the Minister gave the House valid reasons why he was not yet ready with proposals to meet the situation, then the House would always be sympathetic to the Minister. However, we think it better that after 1960 the Minister should justify any delay every year instead of making the delay automatically applied until 1962–63.
In view of the lateness of the House and other business which is still to come, 1 do not wish to go into greater detail. The matter was discussed on Second Reading and local authorities affected by it have made representations to the Minister. The general problem is thus known. It is a question of whether we shall have yearly justification after 1960, or whether we shall give the Minister permission to take the limitation automatically up to 1962–63.

Mr. Bevins: Although I cannot recommend the Committee to accept this group of Amendments, I may be able to make one or two comments which will be helpful to the Committee and which may give hon. Members an idea of the pattern likely to emerge in this complicated matter. As drafted, the Bill


secures that no notice to reduce or discontinue relief enjoyed by charities under Section 8 (2) of the 1955 Act can be effective before the end of 196263. Thus, charitable bodies cannot become liable to pay full rates until 1st April, 1963, at the earliest.
The hon. Member has been good enough to explain the significance of the Amendments and I shall not take up time by going over that ground again. As I understand it, the Amendments would be of practical consequence if, after the Government had considered the Report of the Pritchard Committee, it was decided first that there should be no Amendment to Section 8 and, secondly, that notices under it should become effective before the end of 196263. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly right when he said that this was a possibility which we did not seek to rule out and that notices might become effective before 1963.
Indeed, on Second Reading my right hon. Friend used these words:
I am not saying that the Section 8 standstill will necessarily continue until 1963. I am saving that in the Bill we are providing for it to continue until 1963 unless, between now and then, Parliament decides to enact some fresh legislation on the rating of charities which might come into force earlier."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 8245.]
The answer to the question whether Section 8 should be allowed to continue unamended as a permanent provision is equally clear. Section 8 was brought in as a holding provision, something designed to see charities safely over the change in the machinery of valuation for rating and to give enough time to the Government and Parliament to decide whether anything else needed to be done. I do not think that any hon. Gentleman would suggest that Section 8 is likely to be satisfactory as a permanent provision.
As hon. Members know, there is no unanimity among beneficiaries under Section 8 about what should happen, nor, for that matter, among local authorities on how charities should be treated in future. Some local authorities think that there should be no relief at all, or precious little, discretionary or otherwise. Others would prefer to see assistance given direct by way of grant rather than rate remission. At the other extreme, one local authority thinks that there is a case for complete exemption by Statute of all

charities and kindred bodies. Whatever solution is put forward in due course by my right hon. Friend or the Government, there should be an opportunity for Parliament to examine that proposed solution and, if need be, to substitute an alternative solution if Parliament is so minded.
7.30 p.m.
If a solution comes before Parliament in a Bill it can be debated and amended, but an Order of the kind envisaged in the Amendment could only be either approved by the House or flatly rejected. I suppose if an Order were rejected it could only be to make way for an Order specifying a different year. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that there must be further legislation on this tricky and controversial subject. As yet, the Government are not tied to any definite views in advance of the report of the Pritchard Committee which I think the hon. Gentleman may like to know my right hon. Friend is expecting to receive within a month or two.
It is obvious that the ending of the old provisions and the beginning of the new ones, whatever they may be, ought to be synchronised and that the proper place for that is in amending legislation apart from any connection there may be between the two. I think hon. Members will agree that it would be wasteful of Parliamentary time to consider separately an Order fixing the date when the old reliefs end and a Bill which fixes, among other things, the date when the new arrangements, whatever they may happen to be, start. I hope that what I have said will be of some little help to the Committee and that in the circumstances which I have briefly outlined the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will not feel disposed to press the series of Amendments.

Mr. Ede: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said. He said that he hoped that what he had said might be of some little help to the Committee. Perhaps he might be able to make that " little somewhat larger. Are we to understand that when this amending legislation comes in, it will deal with all the problems raised by Section 8 of the principal Act? I took some part in the discussions that led to the passing of Section 8. We know it is difficult. I have been somewhat surprised by the decisions of the courts with regard


to what is a charity. Some of the learned societies, which I would have thought were undoubtedly charities, have found that they have become liable, for instance in the City of Westminster, for considerable sums of rates that have threatened their very existence.
Is the proposed legislation to be wide enough to enable us to deal with the question of the definition of what a charity is, and how it is to be recognised by law? Unless we can get that point settled the present unsatisfactory state of affairs and the anxieties of many estimable and learned societies will continue.
I hope that this is regarded as a matter of urgency by the Government, because many people are feeling considerable frustration at the moment and are hanging on in the desperate hope that the exercise of that awful phrase " somehing must be done " will come about. Too often when people get into the frame of mind that "something must be done ", the first thing that is done is not always something that relieves the situation.

Mr. Bevins: I do not dissent from a word that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said. It was expected that we would some time ago have had the report of this Committee on charities, but that Committee has found the subject more complicated and abstruse than perhaps any of us did originally. It is the hope of my right hon. Friend that legislation will cover the whole field that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Lindgren: In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bil

Schedule agreed to.

Rill reported, without Amendment read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — BUILDING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 6 —(APPLICATION OF BUILDING STANDARDS REGULATIONS AND BUILD ING OPERATIONS REGULATIONS TO CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION, AND TO CHANGE OF USE, OF BUILDINGS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 41, leave out " section two " and insert:
sections two, three or six".

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment and is necessary to bring the reference to the Thermal Insulation (Industrial Buildings) Act, 1957, into conformity with the references to that Act in paragraph 5 of the Ninth Schedule.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 43, leave out from " Scotland " to " buildings " and insert " relate to the power of".

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment. The Act is more accurately described as the 1957 Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 12, leave out subsections (11) and (12).

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It may be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment to insert the new Clause A.
The Amendment corrects a weakness in subsections (11) and (12) and is in substitution of those subsections. In subsections (11) and (12) the building authorities have power to permit the occupation of the road during construction and demolition work performed under warrant. Power is extended to include permission to occupy the road during the carrying out of works for


which no warrant is required, such works as the repair or maintenance of a building.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause A.—(OCCUPATION OF PARTS OF ROADS FOR DEPOSIT OF MATERIALS, ETC.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: After Amendment last inserted, in page 9, line 17, at end insert new Clause A:

Occupation of parts of roads for depositof materials, etc.
.—(1)A buildings authority, on application made to them, may grant permission in writing to any person conducting operations for the construction, repair, maintenance or demolition of any building to occupy temporarily, for the purpose of depositing materials or otherwise in connection with those operations, such portion of any road, whether public or private, adjoining the building as may be specified in the permission, and may by such permission authorise the erection of staging or scaffolding so as to project over that portion of the road or such other portion of the road as may be so specified; and notwithstanding anything in any enactment or rule of law, any person who complies with any permission granted under this section (including any conditions to which the permission is subject by virtue of the next following subsection) shall not thereby be guilty of an offence.
(2) Any permission granted under this section may be granted either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as may be specified ill the permission.
(3) A buildings authority may delegate their functions under this section, as respects such cases and subject to such conditions as they may determine,

(a) to their clerk, or
(b) with the consent of the local authority, to the master of works appointed by the local authority:

Provided that where by virtue of any regulations made under section two of this Act an application for permission under this section is combined with an application for a warrant the application for permission under this section shall be dealt with by the same authority (whether the buildings authority, the clerk or the master of works) as the application for the warrant.

Clause 9.—(POWERS 1N RELATION TO BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT WARRANT OR IN CONTRAVENTION OF CONDITIONS OF WARRANT, AND BUILDINGS WHOSE LIFE HAS EXPIRED.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 20, at beginning insert:
 Subject to the provisions of section (Supplementary provisions as to operations required to be carried out) of this Act,".

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It may be convenient if, with this Amendment, we discuss the next three Amendments together. These are paving Amendments leading to the new Clause B. It clarifies certain important points arising from the power of the building authorities and local authorities in relation to work done without or in contravention of a warrant or in relation to dangerous buildings.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 10.— (POWER OF LOCAL AUTHO RITIES TO REQUIRE BUILDINGS TO CONFORM TO BUILDING STANDARDS REGULATIONS.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 13, line 15, at beginning insert:
 Subject to the provisions of section (Supplementary provisions as to operations required to be carried out) of this Act, [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 15, line 35, after " shall " insert:",
, subject to the provisions of section (Supplementary provisions as to operations required to be carried out) of this Act,". [Special Entry.]

New Clause B.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PRO VISIONS AS TO OPERATIONS REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED OUT.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: After Amendment last inserted, in page 18, line 14, at end insert new Clause B:


(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect where a person is required by any order or notice under section nine, ten or twelve of this Act (in this section referred to as a " requirement ") to demolish, or carry out operations in relation to, a building.
(2) if the building is—

(a) a building in respect of which a notice under subsection (1) of section six of the Ancient Monuments Act, 1931, has been served, or is deemed under subsection (4) of that section to have been served, and which has not ceased to be included in any such list as is mentioned in the said subsection (1),
(b) subject to a building preservation order under section twenty-seven of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947,
(c) included in a list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest, being a list compiled or approved under section twenty-eight of the said Act of 1947, or
(d) subject to an interim preservation notice under section ten, or a preservation order under section eleven, of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953,


the requirement shall have effect only in so far as it is not inconsistent with any provision of the said Act of 1931, the said Act of 1947 or, as the case may be, the said Act of 1953 relating to the execution or carrying out of works or operations on or in relation to the building.


(3) If the person is not in occupation of the building he shall nevertheless, on giving to the occupier such notice as is reasonable in the circumstances, be entitled, notwithstanding any term to the contrary in any lease or other contract, to enter on the building, and any land adjacent thereto and held in connection therewith, for the purpose of complying with the requirement.
(4) Where, in pursuance of any provision of the said section nine, ten or twelve, the local authority seek to recover from the person any expenses incurred by them in carrying out operations in relation to the building, then, if the person proves—

(a) that he has no interest in the building except in the capacity of a trustee, tutor, curator, judicial factor or liquidator of a company, and
(b) that he has not, and since the date of the service on him of a demand for payment of the expenses aforesaid has not had, in his hands in that capacity sufficient funds, rents and other assets to discharge the whole demand of the authority,

his liability shall, notwithstanding anything in the said section nine, ten or twelve, be limited to the total amount of the funds, rents and other assets which he has, or has had, in his hands as aforesaid.
(5) In the case of a requirement being an order under the said section nine or the said section ten, it shall be a defence to any complaint charging the person with failure to comply with the requirement to prove that at the date of the making of the requirement

(a) the person had no interest in the building except in the capacity of a trustee, tutor, curator, judicial factor or liquidator of a company, and
(b) the amount of the funds, rents and other assets in his possession in that capacity was less than the amount of the expenses which would have been incurred if the requirement had been complied with.


(6) If the person alleges that the whole or any part of the expenses incurred or to be incurred in complying with the requirement ought to be borne by any other person having an interest in the building, he may apply to the sheriff, and the sheriff may make such order concerning the expenses or their apportionment as appears to him, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the terms of any contract between the parties, to be equitable.
(7) The provisions of subsection (3) of the last foregoing section relating to the determination of the sheriff on an appeal under subsection (1) of that section shall apply to the order of the sheriff in an application under the last foregoing subsection as they apply to such a determination, with the substitution for

any reference to the appeal under the said subsection (1) of a reference to the application. [Special Entry.]

Clause 16.—(INSPECTION AND TESTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 11, at end insert " for a warrant, in respect of a building, or".

7.45 p.m.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Under the Clause before amendment the Master of Works could require tests to be carried out only after a warrant had been granted and the building was under construction. There may be cases where the applicant proposes to use novel materials whose qualities are unknown or not generally accepted, and in such cases it is in everyone's interest to carry out tests before the warrant is granted. This and the following Amendment effect this improvement.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 20 line 16, leave out " being used " and insert:
used or proposed to be used".
In page 20, line 23, leave out first " the " and insert " their ".

Clause 27.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 6, at end insert:
and any pavement, foothpath, drain, ditch or verge at the side of a road or street:

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment extends the definition of the word " road ". The importance of the definition has been increased by the insertion of the new Clause " A ", which enables the buildings authority to give permission for the temporary occupation of a road for the deposit of materials or other purposes. It is desirable that there should be no doubt about what is meant by a road in that context. The Amendment does nothing to alter the intention of the original definition.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 34, after " amended " insert " applied ".

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a purely technical Amendment. The effect of the Amendment is to provide that any reference in the Bill to an enactment shall be construed as a reference to that enactment as applied, and not only as amended or extended, by any other enactment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30.— [SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 28, line 8, after " twenty-two " insert " and".

In line 8. after first " and " insert:
subsections (2) to (4) of section".

Fourth Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS RE LATING TO DEAN OF GUILD COURT FUNCTIONS UNAFFECTED BY THIS ACT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 18, after " including " insert:
 services, installations and ancillary equipment for the supply or use of gas or electricity and

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is self-explanatory, and meets a point made by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) on Report. It is an earnest of the Government's intention that the regulations should secure the fullest measure of safety in gas and electricity installations.

Mr. William Hannan: I thank the Joint Under-Secretary for the consideration given to the Amendment moved by me, and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), in Committee. We believe that the Amendment will serve a useful purpose and go a long way towards meeting the point which we made about the dangers arising from the inefficient installation of gas and electricity services.
We also hope that the warnings uttered in our discussions in Committee will have had their effect, in that the publicity given to them will make householders extremely careful not to overload electricity points, thereby incurring a danger of fire.

Question put and agreed to.

Sixth Schedule.—(RECOVERY OF EXPENSES BY CHARGING ORDER)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 33. line 32, leave out first " and ".

Eighth Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 35, line 3, leave out " section six and section nine " and insert:
sections six, nine and sixteen".

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment brings within the scope of the transitional provisions the arrangements for inspection and testing provided for in Clause 16.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 36, line 11, after " subsections " insert " (2) ".

Ninth Schedule.—(MINOR AND CON SEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF ENACT MENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 37, line 2, at end insert:
1. In the Turnpike Roads (Scotland) Act, 1831 (as set out in Schedule C to the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878), section eighty-seven shall have effect as if for the proviso to that section there were substituted the following proviso, that is to say,
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any materials laid or left upon any road or any footpath or side drain or ditch of such road in pursuance of a permission granted under section (Occupation of parts of roads for deposit of materials, etc.) of the Building (Scotland) Act, 1959.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment, consequential on the new Clause A which establishes the procedure for permission for temporary occupation of a road. The permission so granted, while in force, must override the ancient right in the landward areas to remove and impound any building materials left on the roads.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I notice, in the proposed insertion, the words:
… materials laid or left upon any road or any footpath or side drain or ditch of such road…
The Joint Under-Secretary moved an Amendment in the definition Clause


extending the definition of the word " road " to mean
any pavement, footpath, drain, ditch or verge at the side of a road or street.
Having defined the words so widely there I wondered whether it was necessary to use these words in the insertion in this Schedule.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I also asked that question and I was advised by the draftsmen that that was the best thing to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 37, line 13, leave out " erecting, taking down" and insert:
constructing, extending, demolishing, maintaining ".

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This drafting Amendment extends the scope of the offence of occupying a street without permission to all operations in the building field and matches up to the new Clause A by including maintenance as one of the operations.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 37, line 15, leave out " subsection (11) of section six " and insert:
section (Occupation of parts of roads for deposit of materials, etc.)".

Orders of the Day — HIGHWAYS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read. 7.48 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is substantially to consolidate highway law but, as it goes beyond pure consolidation and makes minor Amendments, in the words of the expert Committee's Report
not of substantial importance",
it has to follow a special procedure.
A Committee of experts under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Marquess of Reading and including my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), the hon.

Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving), and a number of leading experts concerned with the administration of highway law, was set up last year. It studied the complex collection of legislation on highways which has grown up over the past 100 years, in fact since the last consolidation Act in 1835, and it made a report which contains this draft Bill, Cmd. 630.
1 would express to the Committee the warm thanks of the Government for performing this arduous and very expert task. The Bill has been considered by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses, which has been through the Bill Clause by Clause. It included the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), and it recommended certain minor Amendments which are now incorporated in the Bill. The draft Bill is a consolidation of the law relating to the administration of highways and bridges, as distinct from traffic regulations, and excluding London. The Schedules to the Bill list more than 30 Acts to be wholly repealed and as many again to be partly repealed.
Consolidation will obviously be a boon to all concerned with highways administration. Although it will still be a formidable task to read through the 313 Clauses of the Bill, it will be a far lighter task than searching through 60 or 70 Acts, which has to be done now. The Amendments incorporated in the Bill are all of a minor nature. The expert Committee set out to provide us with a Bill which Parliament could treat as an agreed Measure. In the course of its Report, the Committee comments upon the Amendments of substance which it might have made but would be inappropriate in this Bill. These will have to be dealt with by new legislation some time in the future. The Bill will at any rate provide a sound basis for that work in due course. In that connection the expert Committee's Report makes very helpful and constructive suggestions which can he taken into account in due course.
Turning to the Bill for a moment, I think that hon. Members will have noticed that Clause 38 says:
 After the commencement of this Act no duty with respect to the maintenance of highways shall lie on the inhabitants at large of any area.
Those time-honoured words are now to disappear and highways are to become
maintainable at the public expense 


In this connection, tradition has had to bend the knee to clarity. With regret, I commend that change to the House.
Another highlight in the Bill is the repeal of Section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act, as the result of which it is no longer an offence to bait bulls on the highway. I commend this to the hon. Member for Enfield, East, as an alternative sport to baiting Parliamentary Secretaries, in this context. There is much interesting material in the Bill. Nevertheless, I suspect that the House would prefer that 1 should resist the temptation of going through its 313 Clauses Clause by Clause.

Mr. David Jones: Why not?

Mr. Nugent: Well, I might be tempted, but I resist the temptation. I will stop short at recommending those hon. Members who are interested in highways to read the expert Committee's Report, which is a first-rate document and is full of valuable material.
Before concluding, I would give a brief description of the procedure, as I believe it is not often used in Parliament. First of all, a draft Bill was examined by the expert Committee under the Marquess of Reading, and the Bill was then introduced into the House of Lords and given a Second Reading in the ordinary way. At that point, a Joint Committee of both Houses was appointed to consider the Bill. The Committee made its Report, which recommended a few further Amendments, not of a substantial nature. The Bill then had its ordinary Committee stage in the House of Lords. The Amendments which had been suggested by the Joint Select Committee were then considered and approved. The Bill was then given a formal Report and Third Reading and, in that shape, it cones to this House.
Here it goes through the normal procedure of Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading. It means that hon. Members are constitutionally entitled to put down any Amendment or new Clause they might wish; but in practice I would feel bound to advise the House or the Committee, as the case might be, not to accept an Amendment or new Clause of substance, however meritorious it might be, because that

would be contrary to the general spirit of the procedure, which has been a self-denying ordinance throughout, in order to bring about consolidation.
Those familiar with highway law know of all kinds of useful Amendments which could be made. That is true of hon. Members and local authorities, and many other people who are very interested in the matter. In those circumstances, we have either to do a major job of amending the law, or to do no more than consolidation, which is, in fact, what the Bill sets out to do.

Mr. D. Jones: This is a rather important point. I gather from what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is saying that this is not pure consolidation because the Bill contains a number of Amendments. Would it be possible for the hon. Gentleman, for the convenience of the House, to publish between now and the Committee stage something to show us which parts are not pure consolidation?

Mr. Nugent: Yes. The hon. Gentleman will find the points which are amending rather than consolidating very clearly set out in the Report of the expert Committee. I think that the hon. Member will be satisfied, if he reads it, that what has been dealt with is of only minor importance and not of substance. It is a document well worth reading both with regard to the Bill and the suggestions it contains for the future. I have mentioned the procedure because I thought it was a matter of special interest. It shows the flexibility of our institutions to be such that we are able to make arrangements to deal with almost any kind of legislation. I think I have said enough to indicate the purpose of the Bill, and I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the brevity with which he has introduced this little Bill. In less than 10 minutes he has disposed of 313 Clauses and 26 Schedules. I was very pleased to hear him say " Turning to the Bill for a moment".
Possibly the Joint Parliamentary Secretary might have given the House a little more information about some of the Amendments which have been made to highway law during the various stages of


the Bill. As he pointed out, the Bill goes beyond pure consolidation, although he advised the House not to endeavour to add any more Amendments; but it is open to the House to do so.
This is a very bulky Bill and provides great opportunity for obstruction from this side of the House. I imagine what might have happened in a previous Parliament when Mr. Geoffrey Bing was Member for Hornchurch. He took advantage of every opportunity, when he considered it desirable, to obstruct legislation. The Bill could keep the House busy, if we so desired, for the rest of this Parliament.
In spite of the procedure which has been followed so far, the Government are asking the House to act with rather great speed. The Bill is receiving a Second Reading today and is coming before us in Committee on the Floor of the House next Tuesday, I believe. That gives us very little time to consider Amendments of a minor character which we might wish to put down, which all the Amendments so far, it is claimed, have been.
The Reading Committee, to which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred, did an extremely good job, in my view. I have studied its Report, and I will add my congratulations to those of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the work which it did. It has certainly made the task of hon. Members of this House far easier. In fact, we could not have tackled this formidable task but for the work of that Committee. This combination of hon. Members of both Houses and of the experts from the Ministries and outside is an excellent procedure.
In passing, I would correct what the Parliamentary Secretary said at one point, when he referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving). It was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) who represented the Opposition on the Reading Committee.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to a self-denying ordinance which hon. Members have imposed upon themselves. The Report makes it quite clear that its terms of reference limited the task of the Committee to the removal of anomalies, inconsistencies and ambiguities, to abrogate provisions which are obsolete or

otherwise unnecessary, or to modernise procedure. On the whole, I think one could say that was the limitation observed by the Committee.
I was on the Joint Select Committee of both Houses and it was interesting to find that the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, on the one hand, and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, on the other, did not always take the same attitude towards what was considered an ambiguity or anomaly. In the case of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government some of the Amendments which were agreed to were certainly interpreted rather widely as being anomalous. Be that as it may, I think that the procedure which has been followed in this case, for which no doubt there are many precedents, is a little open to question.
I wonder why, with a Bill which consolidates a very large number of old and more modern laws, the opportunity was not taken to amend the law to a greater extent. It would have been possible procedurally to have done so, but presumably it is a question of the physical ability of Parliament to do so in a reasonable time. I can quite understand that once consolidation has taken place it will be simpler to amend the law. I fully appreciate that, but I can see circumstances in which it might have been tackled differently.
For instance, if this Bill had been introduced at the beginning of a Parliament, there might have been time available for the Bill to be carried over from Session to Session and for the law to be amended as considered desirable at the same time as it was consolidated. That would mean one stage rather than two stages, whereas one fears that the second stage of bringing the law more up-to-date will now be put off for some time.
There remain in the Bill a number of provisions which are not in accord with modern requirements. Various associations concerned with it, particularly municipalities, have drawn the attention of hon. Members to aspects of the highways law which they wish to see changed. I should have thought that some of those which are not very substantial could have been dealt with. Others may have been of such substance that it was not desirable to incorporate them, but I feel that the Committees concerned have gone a little too far in


being meticulous not to amend the law in substance. The opportunity could have been seized to bring it more up-to-date.
There are still some Amendments that I should like to see in the Bill. Some were drawn to my attention by parish councils and other by those interested in open spaces, National Parks, and so on. They have drawn my attention to the fact that certain aspects of the law relating to rights of way and dedication are unjust. Between now and next Tuesday there is not much time, but we on this side of the House will look at this matter and consider whether we should put down an Amendment in that connection.
Another Amendment in the same class, to which my attention has been drawn by parish councils, concerns the erection of direction posts by parish councils. They are permissible at present only when they are provided for in local Acts. It might have been desirable for a general enabling Clause to have been included in the Bill to extend that power to parish councils. The law on closure and diversion of highways is very confused and needs complete overhaul, but that might he beyond the scope of this Bill.
I referred to minor matters we shall be looking at between now and Tuesday and said that if we consider it advisable we may put down Amendments. As the Committee stage is to be taken on Tuesday and today is Thursday, if such Amendments are put down on Monday and are starred, I hope that the Chair will not rule them out of order simply on the ground that longer notice has not been given, because there will not be opportunity for tabling Amendments before Monday.
There is a further topic to which I draw the attention of the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. In the Reading Report and in the Report of the Joint Select Committee attention has been drawn to the fact that some of the penalties which apply where offences under the provisions of the Bill are committed are quite out of keeping with the offences for which they are provided. There is no question that there are inconsistencies in fines imposed as between one offence and another. It would be highly desirable that the penalties should be overhauled and brought more into line with current money values.
It was pointed out in the Reading Report that the maximum penalty under the highway law which is being consolidated in this Measure is 40s. and that under the Public Health Acts the maximum penalty is £5 for a number of offences, the gravity of which is comparable.
The inadequacy of the penalties can he shown by drawing attention to the fact that where animals stray on the highway the person guilty of permitting them to do so can be fined 5s. The maximum amount, no matter how many stray on the highway, is, I understand, 30s. In this modern day with, we hope, modern highways coming along, the law providing that a farmer, or whoever is responsible for animals straying on the highway, shall be fined only 5s. per head, is quite inadequate. The Report of the Reading Committee stated:
There are, we understand, strong feelings about this on the part of many local authorities particularly in certain areas where straying animals create a special problem. It is difficult not to feel some sympathy for the claim that the maximum fine, fixed long before the coming of motor traffic on the roads, is due for revision. We feel, however, that any increase would evoke opposition from many persons and ought not to be effected in a Bill of this character but by a separate enactment.
I do not share that view. I raised this in the Select Committee, and we had a brief debate on it. The Committee decided, however, not to attempt to bring the various penalties into line, but to refer to the matter in its Report. It was certainly beyond the scope of the Select Committee, but I do not think it was beyond the scope nor ability of the Committee of experts to go through the various penalties which are imposed and to bring them into some order of consistency and into line with modern values.
It seems regrettable that we shall be enacting a Bill which continues many penalties for offences of varying degrees when those penalties will not be adequate to fulfil the purpose of deterring the Commission of the offences. It seems foolish for the House to pass legislation incorporating fines for offences which the House is fully aware mean very little to those who will be called upon to pay them if they commit the offences and are convicted.
The House is enacting penalties which it knows are not adequate to the occasion, and I should have thought that during the various stages of the Bill, which


has taken between eighteen months to two years from the first draft, a sub-committee of the Reading Committee could have been working on the problem in an attempt to bring the penalities up to date.
By coincidence, this matter was raised at Question Time in the House today. My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) asked the Home Secretary what steps had been taken to bring penalties more into line with current values, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that there was a Home Office committee considering this matter and that progress was being made. I asked whether the opportunity should not be taken, when consolidation Bills were being considered, to bring the penalties up to date, and the Home Secretary replied that where practicable that was being done. I should have thought that this was a practical case.
The Minister will recall that we did this in the Road Traffic Act, 1956. When that was being passed through the House many changes were made in the fines and the prison sentences which the Bill permitted and a number were stepped up considerably. If it were practicable to do it in the Road Traffic Bill. I do not see why it is impossible to do it in this Bill.
There is not much more that I want to say at this stage. The Bill is valuable in as much as it consolidates the law. It is of value to the extent that it makes amendments to the law where it is obsolete and where it needs clarification and the removal of anomalies, but I do not think that it has gone far enough in that respect. The highways law dates back to the Magna Carta, and although there was a consolidation in 1835 the necessity for consolidation of the provisions now was obvious. Many of our roads are about as obsolete as the highways law, and the Bill has no effect on the building of roads or even on bringing them up to date, except in one or two minor particulars.
After my experience with the Bill so far, I cannot but be greatly worried at the confused state of so much of the Statute law, of which this is a very good instance. Much of it is obsolete, a considerable part of it is ambiguous and a great deal of it lacks clarity. It is chockablock with inconsistencies and is riddled with anomalies, and the penalties which it provides

are no longer appropriate to the offences to which they apply. The punishment does not always fit the crime.
The task of revision is formidable and even frightening, but revision is as essential as consolidation. To the extent to which this consolidation is a preliminary to revision, and hastens it. it serves a doubly welcome purpose. The Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can, therefore, be assured that we on this side of the House will support the Bill through its remaining stages. It may be that in Committee we shall move a few Amendments, but they will not be of major substance because we shall abide by the self-denying ordinance to which the Minister referred.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I agree with very much said by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), but while I agree with him about the penalties and the anomalous state in which the Reading Committee left them, I would point out to him that that Committee was appointed on 25th February last year and reported exactly eight months later, on 25th November, a period which included the summer Recess. I think that he will, therefore, see that to some extent that Committee tried to do the work expeditiously as well as comprehensively.
The review of penalties, which we all agree to be overdue, would, first, be a considerable task, and secondly, was at least arguably outside the terms of reference of that Committee. On the other hand, it was not outside the terms of reference of the Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons, but it may well be that in view of the period of the Session which we have reached it would be wise not to embark on that.
Like the hon. Member, I should prefer to see a Bill of this kind introduced at the beginning of the Session, because although it may be easier to amend the law after it has been consolidated, in fact what we are then doing is passing a neat Act of Parliament, bringing all the threads together and having only one Act to which people need refer, and then immediately beginning to pull it about and to spread the law again into more than one Act. It is a pity that we cannot follow the procedure adopted in


the Road Traffic Act, where we had six or eight months of fertile legislation in Standing Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Minister assumed his present office in the middle of that Herculean labour and, with his collaboration and help, we had a pleasant time in Committee. It was one of the few experiences in my Parliamentary life when, for a long time, we seemed to have forgotten the existence of Whips on either side, and I feel that a highways Bill could have given us a renewal of that experience, because it is a completely nonpartisan matter.
The fact remains, however, that the Committee was appointed in February and reported at the end of November and that no time has been lost in introducing the Bill, first in another place and now in the House. Perhaps we can look forward in the next Session of Parliament to some important amendments of it.
Inasmuch as they are in order on the Bill, I want to refer briefly to two matters on which I should like to see major amendments, although, because of the timetable, I do not propose to put Amendments down about them, as my hon. Friend will be relieved to hear. The first, which I have never pretended is a minor matter or one of no substance, is that I should like to see the law altered about liability for non-feasance in highway repair. Here is an anomaly which has persisted in our law for generations.
If a highway authority deliberately does something on the highway whereby a passer-by is injured, he can recover damages from the highway authority, but if by mere inaction the authority allows the highway to get into so dangerous a state that a person is seriously injured, he has no redress in law. That is a strange state of the law. It will not be simple to remedy it, but the remedying of it is certainly not beyond the ingenuity of Parliament. I am sorry that we have not time in this Session to make that change.
The second proposal is that we should get round to doing something about the liability for making up private streets. Under various codes, mainly the Private Street Works Act, 1892, the burden falls upon the frontager according to the length of his frontage. In the draft Bill which

the Reading Committee prepared we were able to put in one minor mitigation of that law, which will be found in Clause 210 (2). which empowers local authorities to do something that until now they have never been able to do, namely, to help by contribution, or even in an extreme case exemption, a frontager who has a heavy burden placed upon him because of a great length of flank or rear frontage.
It can happen quite easily that a man has a front in the strict sense on to one road, which is not the road being made un, and he can have a long garden wall flanking on the road being made up. In respect of that flank, which may have no access to the road being made up, he may receive a bill for road charges of anything un to £1,000. At this moment a local authority can help all the frontagers or none. If it is not willing to help all the frontagers, it cannot help an individual frontager.
I am glad to say that the Bill will make it possible for a local authority, if it wants to, to help one hard case. I should like to see the law amended so that in future local authorities must, not may, adopt the degree of benefit criterion. Ai present, if a local authority does not decide of its own volition to pass a resolution basing the charge for making up a private street upon the degree of benefit which each frontager will enjoy, no one can force the local authority to do it. If it does not do it, the cost is distributed on a strict arithmetical calculation of length of frontage and nothing else. I cannot see why the option of going by degree of benefit should not be made a mandatory procedure.
The next and more far-reaching change which I should like to see is the burden of making up private streets gradually transferred from the frontager to the local authority. That is not a change which one can make discontinuously, because, if one did, a man who, on the last day before the law was changed, had paid perhaps £400 or £500 in road charges would feel rightly aggrieved that everyone after that date would pay nothing.
Therefore. one would have to do it in a transitional way, perhaps transferring 10 per cent. of the burden each year for ten years so that nobody would have a harsh sense of grievance and eventually after ten years there would be no more measuring of frontages and rendering


sometimes crushing bills to householders, forcing them, often enough, to mortgage their houses and sometimes even to sell them. I know, because I have had in my constituency cases of great hardship arising out of this.
I know that the New Streets Act, 1951, deals with this in another way by requiring owners of houses to pay a computed road charge to the local authority at the time that the house is built. In towns and urban areas, as the years pass, that certainly will mitigate this problem, but it has little application to rural areas. When the New Streets Act was going through the House I remember that I pressed for rural areas to be excluded, unless they applied to the county council to have the Act applied to them, because it can so easily happen in a rural area that a man will pay charges when his house is built. but no road will be made up for perhaps twenty or thirty years until sufficient density of development has occurred.
That did not seem to me to be a reasonable provision to apply indiscriminately and at once to all rural areas. There is this enduring difficulty about them. I cannot see that there will ever be any final solution to the vexed question of road charges except that which I suggest of a graduated transition from one system to the other.
These are not minor amendments of the law. They are very important ones. I do not propose to imperil the progress of the Bill by putting them forward on Committee stage. I mention them now in the hope that in the next Session of Parliament when, perhaps I put them forward in legislative form, if the Government do not, my right hon. and hon. Friends will smile upon them and help them on their way to the Statute Book.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: We have before us a fairly formidable Bill which contains several Parts and also 313 Clauses, to say nothing of 26 Schedules. It is a massive document for the House to digest. Nevertheless, the document is welcome to most people concerned with highway problems, in that it consolidates much of the existing legislation and will, we hope, make that legislation more easily understood and applied.
I suggest that the Minister takes the opportunity of making a radical reorganisation of the administrative responsibility for highways throughout the country. The radical reorganisation that I suggest to him is the setting up of a national highway authority in which should be vested all powers and responsibility, for our national highways. At the moment a state of chaos exists in the physical control of, responsibility for, and financing and maintenance of our highways.
Clauses 1 to 6 define the authorities responsible for certain portions of the highway. Clause 1 (1) states:
The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (hereafter in this Act referred to as " the Minister ") shall be the highway authority for….
and reference is made to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Subsection (2) says that
The council of a borough or urban district shall be the highway authority for all highways in the borough or district, whether highways maintainable at the public expense or not, not being.
and there is reference to paragraphs (a) and (b).
Subsection (3) states:
The council of a county shall be the highway authority…for all highways..." and reference is made to the three paragraphs that follow.
Clause 2 is entitled " Highway authority for road which ceases to be a trunk road " and the title of Clause 3 says that the " Local highway authority may be highway authority for certain highways constructed by Minister ". Clause 4 defines a "Highway not a county road". The title of Clause 6 is, " Highway authority for approaches to, and parts of, certain bridges in non-county borough or urban district".
I suggest that the time has come when all that sub-division of authority should be drastically remodelled, and a central highway authority established in which should be vested responsibility for all roads, whether classified or district, and whether maintained by the Minister, the county councils or the district councils. Such an authority should have financial resources adequate to maintaining existing highways, and those necessary for building new highways and bridges.
If this opportunity were taken to create a single highway authority responsible for the physical maintenance and construction of roads and bridges, and for the necessary finance, it would make for greater efficiency, and the results would be far superior to anything we can expect from the present multiplicity of authorities, each responsible for a piece or parcel of our main highway system.
There is a further weakness in the present position. The Home Office has a certain amount of responsibility for highway control, and enforcement of regulations. One of my complaints is that the Minister of Transport is too fond of making regulations that the Home Office find almost impossible to enforce. I am not at all sore that there is the close cooperation between the two Departments necessary to avoid the right hon. Gentleman making regulations that lead, in some cases, to chaos, and the consequences of which the Home Office is unable to control.
If the attention of the right hon. Gentleman's Department is brought to abuses arising from some of these regulations, he says. That has nothing to do with me. It is for the Home Office to enforce any regulations that are made." At the same time. the Home Office finds it difficult, if not quite impossible, to control the consequences which flow from the regulations. We have this continual " passing of the buck," as it were, between the Departments.
A strong case can be made for a single all-purposes authority that would be responsible for the physical maintenance of all our highways for the building of new roads and bridges, and for the enforcement of those control regulations that are made from time to time.
This will probably be regarded as a revolutionary proposal, but I feel that there is substance in it. I have heard, as other hon. Members have heard, eminent men with an expert knowledge of the traffic problem advance the idea that the time has come for us to have a national highway authority with sole responsibility for all matters pertaining to our highways system. The traffic on our roads has grown considerably, particularly in the years since the war, and the intensity of traffic will increase and develop in the future. Many problems

arise from this growing development of road transport.
Not the least is the problem of parking by both day and night. The right hon. Gentleman has made an attempt to control it in some areas of central London, by the use of parking meters, but, with the ever-growing increase in the number of vehicles, the parking problem will inevitably become more intense. More often than not, the increase in the number of vehicles is greatest in highly congested districts where there is either very limited garage accomodation or none at all, the highways being used more and more as parking places where vehicles are sometimes abandoned and left unlicensed and dangerous situations are created.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Finance Bill, is to take powers to establish the principle that all vehicles parked on the roads must be licensed. What a tragic situation it is that anybody can bring a vehicle along and dump it on the highway, even when it is not licensed, and leave it there. The police have certain powers in the matter, but they are very often reluctant to use them, and, in some cases, there is not much which they can do about it. I recently heard of a local authority which had a parking problem on one of its housing estates. Not only is the housing estate overcrowded with parked cars to such an extent that, if there were a fire, it would be very difficult for the fire brigade to have free access to the seat of the fire, but commercial vehicles which are regularly parked there seriously contribute to the danger. Despite the effort of the local authority to secure the removal of the commercial vehicles, no notice is taken of the representations the authority makes but the vehicles continue to remain where they are, causing obstruction and danger.
This aspect of the problem must now be considered by the right hon. Gentleman. I confess at once that I have not had time to go through all the 313 Clauses of the Bill. I should like an assurance from him that he is taking, or hopes to take, powers in the Bill effectively to control this serious and growing problem of day and night parking upon the highways in congested areas by the provision of adequate off-street and garage parking. In this respect, of course,


local authorities have a certain amount of responsibility. I dare say that the Minister may say, " It is not my responsibility how many vehicles are parked on the highways or for how long they may remain there." I suggest, however, that it has a great deal to do with his Department.
The only public authority that I can discover that is attempting to do anything in this respect is the local authority. If local authorities are to provide off-street parking they must spend money. In congested areas, land or sites for this purpose are very difficult to come by, and if they can be acquired the costs of acquisition are very high. I know of local authorities which have spent money on acquiring sites and have laid them out at fair expense for the parking of vehicles, mainly to take them off the streets. Many people who park their vehicles on the streets will not make use of the facilities which the local authority provides because of the charge which it is rightly entitled to make for the use of its lockup parking places to meet the costs involved in acquiring sites and constructing parking places.
In one case a local authority was making a charge of 32s. a month on a site that could accommodate about 15 vehicles, but only one vehicle was parked on this lock-up parking place, while within short distances a large number of vehicles were regularly parked for long periods at a time.
Sooner or later something must be done about this problem, because it is growing more and more acute. The number of vehicles using the roads and requiring parking places is growing considerably. This we all welcome and we want to see cars widely used by as many people as possible. But unless open parking or garage accommodation is provided the condition of our streets in a few years' time will be appalling, especially at times of poor visibility.
We get quite a lot of fog in London. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary should make a tour on a foggy night to see the state of some of our highways and the bunching of stationary vehicles. Some people have to travel. They have no alternative. They must get about in a vehicle, and when fog is absolutely dense and visibility is reduced to about 2 yds. nobody,

of course, can go anywhere. Although the fog is not dense at all times, visibility is often bad and the congestion of parked vehicles is then a danger. I suggest to the Minister that unless the provision of adequate parking places by a responsible authority is adequately dealt with, the condition of our roads and streets will be appalling.
Therefore, while I welcome the Bill in so far as it consolidates existing legislation, I would go one step further and repeat what I said at the beginning and ask the Minister, now that he has, apparently, taken his courage in both hands, to do the job thoroughly and well. If he does the job thoroughly and well, there is great merit in the idea of establishing a single national highway authority to take complete responsibility for our highway system and also to be the financial authority to undertake the necessary work in connection with our highway system.
We should not leave as it is this patchwork quilt with a multiplicity of authorities, some responsible for certain roads and some responsible for others, one authority financing maintenance and new development on certain roads and another authority responsible for other kinds of roads. It is a state of chaos.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity now presented to him to try to straighten out this tangle. We do not often get opportunities of dealing with the problem in the comprehensive way that is now possible. The House is about to get down to the study of the problem and it is being called upon to contribute a satisfactory solution that will last for some years ahead. If we are to do that, we ought as far as we can to embody in a new Bill of this kind solutions of the traffic problems that are likely to arise in the next generation or two. Now is the time to do it.
I hope that the Minister will take his courage in both hands and effect a substantial reorganisation of the existing chaotic structure and in its place put a readily definable authority equipped with the necessary power and finance to undertake the responsibility of our highways and also the problem of traffic movement throughout the length and breadth of the country. If he takes this opportunity now, I feel sure that he will be doing a great job of work for the country.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Reading Committee on the splendid work that it has done in bringing out its Report and in producing the Bill. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred to one modernisation phrase which has come out in the Bill. We now have not highways which are
repairable by the inhabitants at large".
but highways
maintainable at the public expense".
In the past, I always conjured up a strange picture of the inhabitants at large going out to maintain the highways.
The Bill goes even further in modernisation in that the inhabitants at large can no longer he indicted for not going out to repair and maintain their highways. To that extent, the Bill has come up to modern conditions. I would have hoped, however, that opportunity could have been taken to modernise yet further.
My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that the Bill will probably form the basis for future reforms. It is extremely useful to have this codification in front of us in order to use it as a basis for reforms. I think, however, that, with some very minor Amendments, the opportunity might have been taken of starting on a change in the conception of a highway.
Reading this Bill, one still has the old idea of the highway—that the citizen has the right to pass and repass along it, and that that is all the highway is. The modern highway is a lot more than that. It is somewhere where many people are killed and injured every day. I think that we have to change our conception of a local authority being permitted to lay down a road or a footpath merely with the idea of persons and vehicles " passing and repassing ", to use the old phrase of the law.
We have the most admirable reports which come from the Road Research Laboratory upon, for example, surfacing, construction and lighting of roads and construction of corners and crossroads, not only from the point of view of the best material to be used for the fasting condition of the road, but from the point of view of safety. I would commend these reports and bulletins which come from the Road Research Laboratory to hon. and right hon. Members because

there one can see that lives can be saved by the application of certain methods of construction of roads and by the use of certain surfaces. It is a scientific matter…it is not a matter of guesswork or opinion.
The Road Research Laboratory can produce statistics proving the saving of life by the adoption of certain methods of construction of roads. That being so, I think that in a Highways Bill of this kind we might have imposed an obligation on the highway authorities to use the forms of construction which will save life.
As an example of what I am saying. may I turn to Clause 67 of the Bill. That Clause is the first of the Clauses headed " Safety provisions ". It deals with footways and guard-rails, and begins by stating that it shall be the duty of a highway authority to provide footpaths, and so on, where the local authority deems it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of pedestrians. I am most grateful to the Reading Committee for listening to representations of the Pedestrians' Association for Road Safety in connection with that Clause and making certain minor amendments in the existing law to modernise that duty of local authorities. But Clause 68, which deals with refuges, says that a highway authority " may ", in relation to a highway maintained at public expense, provide a refuge. There is no obligation for it to provide a refuge, similar to the obligation to provide a footpath, when it thinks it necessary for the safety of pedestrians to get across a road.
Clause 69, which deals with subways, states:
…the highway authority …may construct …subways …
I should have liked to have seen the obligation placed upon the highway authority to provide installations to enable pedestrians to get across the road in the same way as there is an obligation on the authority to provide footpaths for pedestrians to get along the road. It is much more dangerous to try to get across roads than to walk along them. Therefore, I should have thought an obligation on local authorities in that respect would have been in place in modern conditions. My contention is highlighted in Clause 70, which places an obligation upon highway authorities to provide grass margins for driven horses


and livestock. As far as 1 can see, taking the Clause as a whole, it is deemed to be more important that a local authority should get a horse along a road than that it should get a pedestrian across it.
This is only a minor amendment involving changing the " mays " into " must ". I will not threaten my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that I shall table Amendments before Tuesday, but this is an important matter because it would change the conception of highways and bring them into conformity with the modern idea that we must make them safe. They are not just passageways for traffic. They are places where people are killed and maimed every day and we must take every step to make them safe.
To turn to another matter which has nothing to do with safety, Clause 159 gives the local authority power to declare an existing highway to be a new street and it deals in particular with a widening of the street. As I read the Clause, it enables a local authority to say, " This street, which is now of a certain width, shall in future, as it develops, be of much greater width ", and to lay down that prescribed width. The frontagers on that street are then forbidden to develop within any of that area which is called the " prescribed area ". Clause 159 (5) provides that:
Where an order under this section has effect, no person shall erect a new building on the land situated between the outer lines prescribed by the order (hereafter in this section referred to as 'the prescribed land ').
A local authority decides that the street shall be widened and on the part which is to form the widening the frontager must not build.
The subsection following states that:
If, where an order under this section has effect, work for the erection of a new building is commenced on land adjoining the prescribed land, then, on the commencement of that work—

(a) the appropriate portion of the prescribed land shall become part of the existing highway, and
(b) the owner of that portion shall remove any boundary fence or other obstruction situated thereon and bring the level thereof into conformity with that of the existing highway…"


Having been deprived of his land, the owner, at his own expense, must bring it up to the level of the highway, but by

reason of the proviso to subsection (6) it does not then necessarily become part of the highway. He is not only to be deprived of the land without compensation and forced to bring it up to the level, at his own expense, but he is to be charged road charges for making it up before it is taken over by the local authority. Surely that cannot have been the intention in drafting the subsection. It is a most terrible imposition on frontagers on a road which a local authority may decide needs widening. I hope that my hon. Friend will look into that point.
I have one other point to make. Under the existing law, when a highway authority reconstructs a street or diverts it, and has to change the pipes and wires under the street, and in doing so puts down better pipes and wires, it can get compensation from the undertakers, that is to say from the gas or electricity boards, for those better pipes and wires. The highway authority can get that, but if any other person who has obtained permission to divert or reconstruct the street does the same, he has no right, merely because of a particular Section in the New Streets Act, 1951, to claim betterment from the undertakers.
This is not just a small technical point. It is a situation which has occurred across the river, at St. Thomas's Hospital. As hon. Members may know, that hospital is to be rebuilt on the site of the existing road there and the road is to be pushed farther back in an arc. In the course of negotiations it has been found that the hospital, which has obtained the right to divert the road, has no right to claim from the undertakers for betterment of the pipes and wires which will be laid under the new road. This position may arise with many other public authorities who are at present developing, whether they are hospital authorities or others. I have not been able to find where this is repeated in the Bill, although the Act under which it arises is repealed. Would my right hon. Friend have that point examined? It arises purely on the construction of a Section of the current Act.
Since I have raised these minor points on the Second Reading of the Bill, I hope I may be relieved of any more research work in trying to put down Amendments. 1 hope my right hon. Friend will think them good points and will put down his own Amendments for next Tuesday.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I had not intended to intervene in this debate and I do so only because I have been impressed by the extent to which the discussion has ranged and the extent to which hon. Members who have spoken have indicated their opinion that more might have been done by way of amendment in this Bill than has been done. In that connection, it is desirable to point out the disadvantages that might follow if too much scope were given for that kind of action. This may not be technically an entirely consolidation Bill but it is in a large measure consolidation and it is expected to have, and in all likelihood will have, a Parliamentary course and history expeditious in character, limited in point of time. These things are made possible only because everybody knows that for all practical purposes it is a consolidation Measure.
Therefore, the moment one contemplated bringing in to the Bill even slightly more controversial issues and slightly more important amendments of the law, we would be confronted by what was inherently a hybrid creature. No one would know whether it was desirable or in the public interest for the matter to be treated with the expedition which is an admirable feature of a consolidation Measure, or with the careful and detailed attention, item by item, that would be appropriate to one of wider scope.

Mr. Page: In the case which I have mentioned, Clause 159 has been altered and. I was endeavouring to point out, altered for the worse. I should have thought that that was one case in which Amendments would be allowable.

Mr. Irvine: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says and any criticism I make of his approach is not an opportunity to criticise everything he said. I merely make the observation in outline that it seems desirable that we should be vigilant in dealing with a Measure of this kind that its consolidation character shall be kept in mind so that no harm may come to it. I venture to point out the peril which might arise if anything other than an extremely cautious and careful view of that aspect of the matter is taken.
I hope that the House will appreciate that, taken as being what it is, primarily a consolidation Measure, the Bill is likely

to be of considerable value. I have no doubt that it will be of very great value to lawyers to have this material in a consolidated and concise form. I have no doubt that it will be useful to local authorities, Departments, and so on.
It is with great sincerity that I observe that the thing is made possible only on the basis of the most prodigious work by public servants. I have especially in mind those who work in the office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Treasury. I had the great privilege of serving on the Reading Committee. I think that other members of that Committee will echo what I have to say in this respect when I observe that what we did and the research we carried out was possible only because of the enormous preliminary work in the Departments, one of which I have mentioned. A tremendous amount of research and meticulous study is required.
I trust that the House will regard this Measure with some caution as being what it is, a consolidation Measure which may be expected to have its peculiar Parliamentary history because it has that character, and will understand that that is the reason why there will be no pressure from the Opposition, at any rate, for anything in the nature of amendments in the law more substantial than the admittedly small amendments now in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) referred to penalties. Perhaps we could have some indication of the Government's view in this regard. It is fairly widely felt among my hon. Friends that it is undesirable to have comprised in an up-to-date Bill of this character a large number of penalties which, in terms of quantum, are hopelessly old-fashioned and out of date. One can see the strength of that point of view.
That is one view of the matter, but there is another and contrary view which weighed with members of the Reading Committee. It is that great disadvantages may attend the alteration of levels of penalty in what is primarily a consolidation Measure, because if the level of penalties is amended in a Measure of this kind, to take account of modern conditions, the consequence is that highway offences are taken as a class of offences for which there is a level of penalty quite distinctive from that for offences of other


classes and which arise out of Statutes which have not equivalently been the subject of the consolidation procedure. That might have consequences not desirable in the public interest. If the Parliamentary Secretary or the right hon. Gentleman himself could say a word about this and give an indication of the Government's view, it would be much appreciated.

9.10 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I wanted to be here only to say a word of very sincere thanks, in addition to what has been said already by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, to the Reading Committee, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) and the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) distinguished members. The Committee did a vast amount of work. I know, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that it had a great deal of help, but none the less, the House should he deeply grateful to all the members of the Committee for the very valuable work which they did.
As regards the last point the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, he will remember what was said by the noble Chairman of the Joint Committee of both Houses, which is, I think, recorded in the Minutes of Evidence:
…we reluctantly came to the conclusion that it would be unwise to act in this particular case "—
that is, of course, the case of increased penalties as a separate matter in the Bill. On the whole, I agree with him. This is a consolidation Measure, and to open the floodgates by one major addition, would, I feel, lay open the whole Bill to a quite different method of procedure. For myself, I feel that it would not be right to do so.
I return now to my real reason for being on my feet, which is to express my own thanks, in addition to those of my hon. Friend, for the very great work done by the Reading Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. [Mr. Bryan.]

Committee upon Monday next.

HIGHWAYS [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to consolidate with amendments certain enactments relating to highways, streets and bridges in England and Wales, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of

(a) the expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under the said Act, to such amount as may be approved by the Treasury; and
(b) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.—[Mr. Watkinson.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — CUT FLOWERS (IMPORT DUTIES)

9.13 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): I beg to move,
That the Import Duties (General) (No. 2) Order, 1959 (S.I., 1959, No. 391), dated 11th March, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.
This Order, made under the new Import Duties Act, 1958, increases the import duties on certain cut flowers and implements the Government's decision on an application by the United Kingdom growers for higher protection against non-preferential imports. It amends the Import Duties (General) Order, 1958, which introduced the present form of the tariff based on the Brussels nomenclature. I do not think that the House will want me to go into all the details of the changes, but I should be willing to do so.
We have frequently said, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food reaffirmed it when he announced the £71 million scheme of assistance for horticulture in January,


that the tariff is the main method of protection for horticulture. This does not mean that higher tariffs than those already in force are necessarily the remedy for all difficulties and in all circumstances. But, in the case of the flowers covered by the Order, the Government reached the conclusion that an increase was desirable.
I would like to outline some of the main considerations affecting each class of flower which led them to this decision. I shall deal, first, with anemones. Imports of this flower from dutiable sources have recently increased sharply. During 1957 and 1958 they were more than twice the level in the two preceding years. The main producing area in this country is West Cornwall which, as hon. Members will recall, is one of the areas of relatively high unemployment, eligible for help under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958.
The same is true of the Scilly Isles, where virtually all our polyanthus narcissi are grown. This crop, together with daffodils, which are not affected by the changes, provide the main basis of the economy of the islands, and the incidence of the previous duty on the imports of this flower was low.
Carnations and roses are both glasshouse products. Imports of carnations come mainly from the Netherlands. and there was a substantial increase in supplies from this source in 1957, and a further but smaller increase in 1958. The impact of these increases was reflected in the trend in the glasshouse acreage under carnations in this country which, after rising steadily since 1954. was reduced in 1958.
Imports of roses, which are also supplied mainly by the Netherlands, do not appear to have shown any tendency to increase in recent years, but the incidence of the previous duty was low. and not to have raised it at the same time as the duty on carnations was increased would obviously have invited importers to switch from carnations 13 roses.
Other flowers affected by the Order cover a wide range of varieties including. inter alia, chrysanthemums, cyclamen, euphorbia, gladioli, sweet peas, lilies, orchids, prunus, pyrethrums, dahlias. violets, calendulas and antirrhinums. We have done this to preserve the balance of the flowers tariff as a whole. The extra

duties will not significantly raise the prices to the consumer.
The considerations which I have just outlined were among the main factors which led the Government to increase he duties. I hope that these increases have gone some way to convince growers that we still regard the tariff as the main means of protection for horticulture.

9.18 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I am sure that the House will understand that at first glance 1 was rather distressed when I read the Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Please. I am the only hon. Lady present—I see that one hon. Lady has joined me, so I shall have some support—and I am sure that hon. Members will allow me to point out that women like to receive flowers from their friends.
At first sight it was a little distressing to feel that our men friends will now have to pay a little more for the flowers which they give us from time to time. Even at political meetings it is still a gracious custom to present a lady speaker with a bouquet. It is a little regrettable to think that the people who like to show their appreciation in that pleasant manner may have to pay a little more for it. As someone who takes some pride and pleasure in the appearance of her house, I am sorry to think that the cost of flowers may increase. At certain times of the year they seem to he expensive enough as it is.
But, having looked into the matter a little more carefully, I find that I can appreciate the argument put forward by the Minister. Probably we all feel particular sympathy with the flower growers in the West Country and in the Scilly Isles, where flower growing is one of the main sources of livelihood, and where the growers have the difficulty of distance to contend with in getting their flowers to the larger centres of population. One would not wish to do anything which would make it more difficult for people, particularly in Cornwall and the Scilly Isles, to make their livelihood.
Therefore, where anemones and narcissi are concerned, there is a very good case, because these are flowers on which the people in that part of the country largely depend. We should not have very strong views about the very slight increase in price. I have made inquiries as to


what the effect on the price would be of the somewhat more sharp increase for carnations and roses, sharper than for narcissi. I asked a grower how many flowers there were to the pound weight. Personally, I never buy flowers by the pound, and half-a-crown a pound seemed to be a very odd way of doing it. I can see that it has a practical advantage. I was told that, on the average, for Dutch carnations grown under glass we get about 27 to the pound and that for the Spanish carnations, out-door grown and slightly smaller, about 32 to the pound. Roughly, what we are doing now is to increase the cost by about a penny on each bloom.
We should not, without question at all, accept protection for any class of goods. One hopes very much that our growers, especially those who do not have to contend with transport costs over a great distance I am thinking of growers of flowers under glass in the Lea Valley and the Thames Valley, and so on—will do their utmost to keep their costs of production as low as they can. After all, we are competing here not with places that have great advantages in climate but with the Netherlands, where the climate is very little better, if at all, than our own. In any case, for glass production climate is neither here nor there.
The position of the consumer should be brought to the attention of growers. Flowers are expensive. I hope very much that, in return for the increased protection offered to them by the Order, growers will realise that consumers have an interest in this matter and will do their best to keep their costs as low as they possibly can.
With that proviso we feel, on balance, that the proposed additional protection given in the Order is justified, and we would not wish to oppose it.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: In following the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), I can at least say that I am. extremely glad to hear that she likes flowers and agrees with the custom of sending flowers. We rather felt, while she was speaking, that she was giving this Order a half-hearted blessing. I am sorry about that because I think the Order is not only an extremely im-

portant one, but one that was necessary to keep our flower growers in the health which I think all hon. Members—perhaps with the exception of the Liberal Party, which is absent as usual and wants 50 per cent. reduction of the tariff—would like to see.
I was surprised at the calculation the hon. Lady made. I think that it must have come from an importer who rather wanted to persuade her on the subject of importing carnations, because the arithmetic seemed to work out more like 5d. a dozen than ld. a carnation, which I think she suggested might be the increase to production.

Mrs. White: Not the increase, but the total.

Mr. Marshall: Fivepence a dozen increase, the hon. Lady agrees, and, as that is the case, there is no quarrel between us.
I was also glad that the hon. Lady mentioned that this Order applies to anemones, as they form a very important part of horticultural production in Cornwall. The Minister of State mentioned the effect on West Cornwall. Possibly he was thinking of the fact that Cornwall lies in the West, but anemones grow in the Tamar Valley as well as in the extreme West. In fact, there is considerable production in the eastern part of Cornwall.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House for long, but I wish to say how glad I was to hear the words used by the Minister of State in bringing forward the Order. It reaffirms the policy of the Minister of Agriculture, the policy of this Government and the policy of the Board of Trade that the main protection for horticulture in the programme of the Government is that of tariff.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) made rather heavy weather of the acceptance and welcome of this Order by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). The Order will mean a considerable advantage to Cornish flower growers, particularly those in West Cornwall and, perhaps, especially in the St. Ives division.
I feel that the House ought very carefully to scrutinise any tariff proposals


brought forward by any Government, but in the circumstances these particular increases are justified, all the more so because under this Government there has been a considerable decline in recent years in other horticultural products from Cornwall, such as broccoli and new potatoes. Therefore, there is all the more reason for encouragement to be given to the flower growers. It has been made clear that the flowers mainly concerned are anemones, polyanthus and narcissii which are grown in the open and have no protection. Even in Cornwall, with our wonderful climate, we suffer from gales and other vicissitudes of nature.

9.25 p.m.

Sir Peter Agnew: I wish to add a note of welcome to this Order. It would be wrong to take too parochial a view of a matter such as this, although it would be idle to deny that the increased duties this Order will bring will not be of over-riding benefit to the particular type of horticulture which is prevalent in my constituency in the Vale of Evesham.
Nevertheless, I welcome the Order as a token of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to continue to use horticultural duties as the main means of giving assisttance where they think it is needed to the horticultural industry. I shall not disguise the fact that when applications were put in by the industry for increased duties on some vegetables, and were turned down, many began to fear that it was no longer the policy of Her Majesty's Government to use such duties. I shall not, of course, dwell upon that, but I mention it to compare it with the favourable reception that this Order should have, limited though it is in its effect.
The horticultural industry has not been having, and is not having today, an easy time. In the Price Review only one short statistical line is devoted to giving the figures for the sales of horticultural produce, including those which arise from the sale of flowers. Whereas, in 1957–58, those figures were £141 million, they were forecast in the recent Price Review as falling by the substantial sum of £131 million for the year 1958–59.
I trust that the coming into force of this Order will do something to remedy that and bring about a trend in the opposite direction. I also hope that, when further applications for Orders are re-

ceived Her Majesty's Government will be emboldened by the reception which this Order has had from both sides of the House tonight to treat those applications strictly on their merits and without too great a regard for what other countries may feel if their wishes are not adhered to. I welcome the Order.

9.32 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I certainly join with my hon. Friends who have so far spoken in the debate in welcoming the Order. In doing so, I should like particularly to pay a tribute to the Prime Minister for the personal interest he took in this matter at a time when everybody knows that he was extremely busy and had many far-reaching problems to contend with. I feel that his personal intervention has been of immense assistance and will be very greatly appreciated by growers.
In presenting the Order the Board of Trade is—I hope that it will not take this as any reflection upon its efficiency—acting as an agent for the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for policy on horticultural matters. This Order is an honest endeavour by the party now in power to honour the pledges which it made to the electorate. We were pledged to protect horticultural growers at all times by means of tariffs. That is what this Order is an honest endeavour to do, because we think that there is a good case for doing it.
It should be made clear that these questions concerning all the vegetable tariffs as well as the flower tariffs have been examined strictly on their economic merit. It is on economic merit that the Order is justified, as I understand it. I hope that it will always be done on that basis, because it would be a tragedy if we were to allow the various political factors. especially European politics, to weigh too heavily when considering these matters.
We have to bear in mind who the main competitors are. The Minister of State mentioned carnations. Dutch production is rocketing upwards. The Dutch acreage under glass is also rocketing upwards. Since 1948, the Dutch acreage under glass has increased by about 50 per cent., and 10 per cent. of that is estimated to be concerned with flower growing. Many of these flowers are carnations.
It is well worth bearing in mind that despite their disappointment about the vegetable tariff increases not being granted, many of the growers have been somewhat relieved by this Order, because some vegetable growers have been allocating part of their acreage under glass to flower growing, and carnations, in particular, lend themselves to that type of production. If we had to single out one set of commodities which we hoped in one step would help the greatest possible number, there is little doubt that we were right to pick flowers.
Although the total value of the production of flowers may he smaller than that of tomatoes, for example, I believe that the number of people involved in the production of flowers is probably far greater than in any other single horticultural product. One need only travel around the countryside in spring and summer and see the number of little wayside halts where flowers are being sold to realise that by introducing this tariff we are helping not only the big commercial growers, but also the small men. It is encouraging that that is so.
This Order has to be read in conjuction with a massive Order No. 973, of 1958, which sets out the various tariff headings which arose after the passing of the Act of that year. We have changed the category of certain of these flowers by moving narcissi of the polyanthus type into the same category as lilac, thus increasing the tariff by 2½ a lb. That may not sound very much in the light of modern costs, but even that small increase will help. The tariff on some other flowers mentioned in the Order—anemones, carnations and roses—is being raised to 2s. 6d. a lb., having, presumably, been at 1s. 8d. a 1b. hitherto.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: indicated assent.

Major Legge-Bourke: In addition, we have created a new class altogether of other flowers and have raised the tariff on that class from ls. 8d. to 2s. a lb., which is an increase of 4d. a lb. on a very long list. These may sound very small sums, and we have to bear in mind that the tariff policy to which the Conservative Party has rightly been dedicated in the past and which this Order endeavours honestly to implement has to be viewed in the light of the circumstances of the time. Tariffs

are essential—no one would dispute that —but the industry must face the fact that other things are necessary, too. I regret that there has not been more constructive thinking recently as to what, in addition to the tariff, will give the growers what they want.
It is easy to talk glibly about tariffs and to say that a tariff policy will do all we want, but when we consider a tariff policy we must decide what the level is to be, what the consequences will be on other countries and what we can do if they begin to retaliate against us. We must face the fact that in introducing this Order we have been able to sugar the pill a little for the Dutch, because while we have obtained this increased tariff against Dutch flowers, we have been able to offer the Dutch a £300,000 increase in the quota of Dutch bulbs imported into this country every year. I am not suggesting that the two were deliberately linked, but it is very convenient that these things should happen together at this moment, when, obviously, we are anxious not to annoy the Dutch more than is necessary.
We have to face the fact that we are trying to protect the horticultural industry in a way from which, in other trades, we are moving away. While welcoming this Order, I think that it is very important that the whole of the industry should get down to some serious thinking to find ways and means in future of giving additional protection, over and above tariffs, so as to enable it to compete on fairer terms with its competitors.
Certain features of the flower industry raise immense complications for growers, and, indeed, for the distributors. A series of letters appeared in The Times in February. The first was written by Mr. Eric Gardner, chairman of the Horticultural Committee of the National Farmers' Union. He pointed out that present tariff levels do not give the same protection as was given by the pre-war tariffs—entirely as a result of inflation.
That point was taken up by Mr. Pilling, chairman of our fruit growers' organisation, who suggested that an increase in the imposition of tariffs for British growers today was simply removing the spur to greater efficiency. That letter was never replied to publicly, but a reply to it was made—and I have a copy of it here. It mentions a matter of


extreme importance in seeing that the Order is satisfactorily carried out. It states:
By a 'Gentlemen's Agreement ' dating back to pre-First World War days the salesman pays both freight and duty on receipt of the foreign flowers, and stands to lose a conisiderable amount in addition to the commission if the flowers are not sold. He would hardly be human if he did not ensure that these imported flowers were sold! The foreign exporting organisations know this, and when any particular market is strong, consign large quantities of cases to the salesmen in that market. These cases just arrive, unheralded and unsolicited, often during our own peak periods. Thus the unfortunate home grower suddenly finds that he is unable to sell his own produce in his own market at an economic price.
What we have to face is that, quite as important as the level of the tariff, is the timing of its incidence. As far as I can see, these tariffs will operate throughout the season, except in the case of hyacinths and the narcissus of other than the polyanthus type, which are not affected. If hon. Members will refer to Statutory Instrument No. 973, of 1958, they will see that the incidence of some of the tariffs varies according to the time of year, though, in the present Order, the tariffs are constant throughout the season.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government are making an honest attempt to honour our party pledges, but I ask them to do everything to encourage our growers themselves to put forward what they think is necessary to make the Order effective. I believe that the most effective thing that the growers can possibly have is a Government ready to operate, at any time, a direct embargo when it is seen that too much is coming in. That, however, is a direct physical control that requires very adequate machinery to operate it. There have been times when embargoes put on horticultural imports have not always worked effectively, for the simple reason that Governments cannot act quickly enough.
I merely trot out that suggestion as one logical and theoretically possible method, because I believe that it is important that the industry should begin to think for itself; and try to put up some coherent views to supplement—and I emphasise the word " supplement "—the tariff policy. I do not believe that, in the modern world, tariff policy by itself can be relied upon very much longer to do all that is necessary to ensure that the

British grower is able to thrive as he should.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) mentioned East Cornwall. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Cam-borne (Mr. Hayman) referred to the St. Ives division of West Cornwall. I should like to put it on record that central Cornwall is interested in this matter.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) is quite right. Flower growing as distinct from other forms of horticulture employs very many people and in central Cornwall, at any rate, they are very often people who are interested also in other forms of agriculture or horticulture. I feel that this Measure will benefit a large number of people who are not normally regarded as horticulturists, and I am sure that they will all be very grateful for it.

9.47 p.m.

Colonel Richard H. Glyn: I join in the general welcome to this Order which has come from both sides of the House, and I am glad to hear that the effect of the tariff, which will bring welcome relief to many growers, will not be to raise costs against the consumer. That is an important point. It should be noted that, if it were not for the extraordinary efficiency of our growers and throughout our horticultural industry, prices would already have been increased substantially more than has been found necessary, because production costs have gone up very much. In this respect, we are at a disadvantage compared with some of our foreign rivals.
The horticultural grower in this country. to give one example, is governed by the same laws regarding the employment of labour as apply to farmers. He cannot adopt the convenient expedient used in many foreign countries by which workers in horticulture work, by agreement, short hours in the winter when there is very little to be done and long hours in the summer without charging overtime. Such an arrangement, which is adopted by many of our rivals, would be quite illegal here. That is one example of the disadvantages under which our growers work.
I am glad that the Order has been welcomed from both sides, but I regret


that we seem likely to remain uninformed about the view of the Liberal Party, which would, I think, be of some interest because I believe that this is the first increase of tariffs since it was stated that it was official Liberal policy to effect a 50 per cent. cut in all tariffs immediately. In the circumstances, I had thought that the Liberals might be here to oppose the Order or, at least, that they might be here to explain why they were not opposing it. Perhaps it is not too late for a Liberal Member to come and do so. Failing this, we shall never know whether the Liberal Party was absent by design or inadvertence, or what its policy on the matter is.
There have been other proposals put forward by horticulturists which the Government have not been able to accept. I particularly welcome this one because I know that cut flowers are an alternative crop to tomatoes. I know that this proposal has been considered and allowed on its merits, and I hope that if, or when, the time comes for further applications to be made for other crops, those will be treated in precisely the same way.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I want to make sure that an omission is not made. We have heard a great deal about flower growing in Cornwall, and I wish it to be noted that in the next county of Devon also we are noted for flower growing. We welcome the Order. I was a little concerned to hear the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) suggest that she was a little worried because the extra price would probably mean less flowers. I can definitely assure her that it would need quite a rise in price to prevent people sending their flowers.
There is something else which anyone who represents flower growers must be thankful for. I refer to the change in custom which has come about. A few years ago, the tendency was very often for a young man to give his girl friend chocolates. Nowadays, with the diet craze, some young women would feel considerably annoyed to receive chocolates, and I believe that the flower trade has benefited from that change in practice. I welcome the Order.

9.50 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): Perhaps I might respond briefly to the comments

that have been made by hon. Members. I am grateful for the way in which ✠he Order has been received with general commendation from both sides of the House.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) seemed a little disturbed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) said, about what she felt was something of a tax on gallantry, if I may so put it, but I am sure that after the reassurance of my hon. Friend she will feel happier on that score. Knowing that her gentlemen friends would think of giving her nothing else but orchids, I assure her that the increase involved is only from ls. 8d. to 2s. per lb. and, therefore, I am sure that her gentlemen friends will not be inhibited from indulging their fancy in this way. I hope that that reassures her and gives her some comfort.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) took up the hon. Lady's point about the amount involved, and I gather that it is now clear that the increase for roses and carnations is assessed to be on average at not more than 5d. a dozen, which, I am sure hon. Members will agree, is a fairly small figure.
Two of my hon. Friends have made a point about the strange absence of any representative from the Liberal Party. I would only add my own surprise in view of the statements which that party has made. It is, I think, regrettable that there is no one here to state clearly where the Liberals stand in this matter.
The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman), I think with general approval, managed to bring in a point about broccoli and new potatoes. Since the Government have been in power, they have substantially increased the tariffs on broccoli and new potatoes with benefit to the people of Cornwall.

Mr. Hayman: I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the production of both new potatoes and broccoli has fallen considerably since his party has been in power.

Mr. Godber: There has been a certain amount of flexibility. There is never rigidity in the growing of horticultural crops. There is change from time to time. The growers of Cornwall are well aware


what crops are best suitable to them. We on this side do not farm from Whitehall.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) made a most interesting speech. I listened with great care to what he had to say. I am sure that he is happy about the assurance given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State that this increase was given on its economic merits and was justified on the basis of the facts put before us. He also suggested that those in the industry should think about what, in addition to tariffs, can be done to help.
I welcome my hon. and gallant Friend's thoughts. We are always ready to hear the views of members of the industry and of the leaders of the N.F.U. at any time on this subject. I am sure that he does not need reminding that we ourselves have taken a positive step in recent months by the proposed introduction of the new scheme to help horticulture through a series of grants which we are at present discussing with the N.F.U. The object is to help growers to keep down production costs, which I am sure will be a real help to them. We would welcome any other suggestion.
I do not think that there is need for me to dwell further on the matter as there has been general acceptance of the Order. I am grateful to the House for accepting the Order in this way and I am sure that it will be warmly welcomed by horticulturists at large.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved,
That the Import Duties (General) (No. 2) Order, 1959 (S.I., 1959, No. 391), dated 11th March, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this I-louse on 16th March, be approved.

Orders of the Day — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (LEVY)

9.54 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): I beg to move,
That the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.
The House will remember that the Cinematograph Films Act, 1957, imposed a levy on exhibitors of cine-

matograph films, the proceeds of which are used for the benefit of makers of British films. Regulations made under Section 3 of that Act provide that the levy should be divided among British films in proportion to their box office takings, but that in calculating the share for short films—that is, films of less than 3,000 ft. — the box office takings should be multiplied by two-and-a-half before making the calculation. This gives them a larger share of the levy and follows the practice of the industry before the arrangements for the film levy were put on a statutory basis.
The first part of the amendment to the Regulations now before the House extends these arrangements to second feature films, although in that case the multiplier is two instead of two-and-a half. It is not easy to define a second feature film. Such a film may sometimes be given a first feature showing in a limited number of cinemas. However, its chief characteristics are that it is a long film made at a relatively low cost. Hon. Members will see that in these amending Regulations such films are referred to as " low cost " films and are defined as
long films the labour costs of which do not exceed £20,000".
This definition is easy to operate, both for the film makers and the Board of Trade, as details of labour costs have in any case to be supplied to the Board of Trade in connection with the quota legislation.
These second feature or " low cost " films are shown in cinemas as part of the supporting programme. The supporting programme gets a relatively small share of the box office takings, the lion's share of which goes to the first feature, which is the main attraction to the cinema patrons. Since the levy is shared amongst film makers in proportion to the box office takings of their films, the share going to the makers of supporting programme films is proportionally low.
The arrangement I have described for short films did something to redress that, but makers of second feature films have until now had to do without any extra help. However, the situation was reached when the share of the box office takings available for the supporting programme was no longer adequate to maintain the production of second features and their output fell sharply. It is to remedy this


that the amending Regulations provide for the earnings of second features to be doubled in calculating the share of the levy to be apportioned to them.
The Act requires the Board of Trade to consult the Cinematograph Films Council before making new regulations. The Council's advice was strongly in favour of making this amendment. The change appears to have the support of almost the whole of the industry. This is partly because it was felt that a further decline in attendances at cinemas might result if provision was not made to meet the requirements of the customers who expect a double feature programme and partly because the view is widely, though not universally, held that the production of these films is a valuable training ground for producers, directors and technicians.
I ought to add that there is a small school of thought which argues that, since second features could be given a greater share of the levy only at the expense of first features, it is a mistake to increase support from this source, first features being the more important from the point of view of overseas earnings and prestige. This minority does not attach the same importance to the view that second feature production affords a valuable training ground.
I remind the House that the levy, although collected by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, is not public money. It remains the industry's money which is paid by one section of the industry to another. Whatever, therefore, may be thought about the minority view I have mentioned, or about the advisability of leaving the economics of supply and demand to look after the financial return to second feature films, the Government have thought it right to accede to the majority request of the industry to help second feature film production by means of a larger share of the levy.
The existing Regulations provide that the share of levy to which a film maker is entitled shall be paid to him within three months after the earnings of all eligible films for the 52-week period have been finally ascertained. Consequently, the new Regulations accord double payments to second feature films in respect of their earnings for the whole of the current levy year which ends on 18th October, 1959. The fact that provisional pay-

ments have been made on the existing basis will not prejudice the producers' entitlement to double levy payments in respect of the full year's earnings when the final calculations are made.
The second part of the Amendment restricts the eligibility for a share of the levy to United Kingdom film makers. At present, an eligible film can be made by a person or company incorporated in any of Her Majesty's Dominions. Such a film, if shown in the United Kingdom, would qualify for levy in proportion to its takings here. Not many such films get a showing in this country at present, but there may be a tendency for the number to increase in order to take advantage of the levy.
The trade has pointed out that it is manifestly unfair to allow part of the levy, which is paid by British exhibitors for the benefit of film makers in Britain, to go to the support of Commonwealth producers.
No reciprocal advantages exist for British films which are shown in other parts of the Commonwealth. This Amendment, therefore, limits eligibility for the benefits of the films levy to
a person ordinarily resident in, or a company registered in, and the central management and control of whose business is exercised in, the United Kingdom.
This change in the definition of an eligible film will only affect films registered after 31st December, 1959. Thus no Commonwealth producer will be affected who may already have embarked on making a film for the British market on the assumption that it will earn levy.
The new definition is adapted from a well-recognised passage in the Income Tax Act, 1952, which provides a test for determining the residence of a limited company. There has been anxiety in some quarters lest it should exclude from the benefits of levy films made by British companies which are subsidiaries of American companies. This is not the intention of the definition. If a company is resident here for Income Tax purposes its films will continue to be eligible for levy.
All the Commonwealth Governments have been informed of the proposed change and no objections have been raised. I should perhaps add that nothing


in the proposed new Regulations will alter the present position in which Commonwealth films count as British films for the purposes of screen quota.
This amendment, as well as the previous one, enjoys the support of the great majority of the film industry and has been recommended to the Board of Trade by the Cinematograph Films Council. In view of the wide desire for these changes in the Regulations I hope that I may look for the support of the House for the amendments.
1 hope, therefore, that the House will give approval to the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations, 1959.

10.2 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I do not think that it is necessary to say very much about these Regulations after the comprehensive and very lucid explanation to which we have just listened. As sonic hon. Members know, I am myself a member of the Cinematograph Films Council and, therefore, have some knowledge of the discussions which took place in the industry before the recommendation was made to the President of the Board of Trade that these Regulations should be introduced.
It is quite true, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, that there is not complete unanimity in the industry on this matter. There are people who consider that second features are not particularly desirable forms of film production and that they do not in fact provide a training ground for our really first-class people who go in for first feature production at subsidiary level and then move up to the top as producers or directors. On balance. it is quite true that second feature production was declining and up against very considerable difficulties including, of course, acute competition from American supporting films which very often could be obtained by the exhibitor almost for nothing as part of the programme with the first feature, and, therefore, the British second feature producers were in great difficulties. Therefore, I think that we are quite justified in giving them the extra help through the levy, or rather in consenting to it because, as the Minister quite rightly pointed out, this is really a levy within the industry and it is only for us to approve the manner in which it is distributed.
There are one or two practical difficulties about any definition which includes the labour cost figure. The figure of £20,000 for the labour cost of the film sounds reasonable enough but we must recognise that if we have a fixed figure of that sort we may come up against difficulties. When the film is considered, it may be thought relatively easy to keep within the £20,000 labour cost figure, but as production proceeds the cost may rise because someone has fresh ideas and, for the quality of the film, it may be desirable to extend the cost a little which would bring it over the level of the £20,000 and outside the scope of the double levy payment. That is one difficulty about having a fixed cost figure.
The other is inflation. What seems reasonable today may not seem reasonable a few years hence. We hope not, but when we look at the experience that we have had in the last few years, it is not unreasonable to recognise that any figure of this kind may prove to be only temporary. However, as we are doing this by Regulations, that is not an insuperable difficulty.
We were glad to have the assurance given us by the hon. Gentleman on the second part of these Regulations—that it is not intended to exclude what we usually call Anglo-American productions. I do not think that Commonwealth film producers will suffer unduly by this arrangement.
Figures for the registration of films in the last quarter of last year and the first quarter of this year show that of the films then registered only one was a feature-length Commonwealth film, although there were a number of short Commonwealth films registered in the same periods. These films will still be eligible for quota, which is a great advantage to them, and I think that the industry in this country was quite within its rights in suggesting that Commonwealth producers have no real moral right to claim the levy as well. On the other hand, it should be made quite clear that if a British producer wishes to produce a film on location in the Commonwealth, that is all right. It remains a British film for purposes of both quota and levy.
I am glad that that is so, because we have a number of British producers at


present who are looking to various parts of the Commonwealth for the location of their films. That is something which we should like to encourage. There is no other comment which I should like to make. On the whole, these are reasonable Regulations and we would welcome them from this side of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.

NATIONAL INSURANCE

National Insurance (Mariners) Amendment Regulations, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 18th March], approved.—[Miss Pitt.]

Orders of the Day — PRESTWICK AIR CRASH (REPORT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

10.7 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I am very grateful nor the opportunity of claiming redress by the traditional method of speaking on the Adjournment of the House for the grievance of my constituent, Captain Hankin, a former B.E.A. pilot. I ask the House to regard this matter as one of first-class importance not only because it involves the whole livelihood and reputation of a man, but also because it provides a striking example of the need for constant vigilance in the never-ending struggle for the protection of the individual against the arbitrary powers of the State.
No one suggests that a Minister or a civil servant would deliberately and intentionally oppress one of Her Majesty's subjects or deprive him of his rights, but the bureaucratic machine is an entirely inhuman and soulless thing and it is essential that it should be kept under control and constantly checked with the bit, if not by the Minister responsible then by the House.
The first matter that I complain of has to do with the methods which were adopted by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation in connection with the

recent publication of the Report of the Prestwick air crash inquiry, which severely censured Captain Hankin without, as I submit, giving him the rights which Parliament has said he should have in those circumstances, and which has so seriously and wrongfully damaged him.
I ask the House to note particularly the timetable. On 21st March of this year, which was a Saturday, Captain Hankin received from the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation a copy of the chief inspector's report on the Prestwick air crash. together with a statement that it would be published on the following Wednesday, 25th March. That report severely censured him. He had not previously seen it or been permitted to challenge it in the way that he was entitled to do. Yet he was given only four days, including the weekend, in which to discover and take any measures he could to protect himself against the consequences of that publication.
Those consequences might well be ruinous to him. Apart from the effect of the publicity itself, the findings in that report could be, and in all probability would be, used for the purpose of justifying the cancellation of Captain Hankin's pilot's licence, with no possibility of an appeal.
That prompts my first demand this evening, that the Minister should explain, as The Times asked that he should do in a very critical leading article on 26th March, why this haste and why this timing? The crash took place almost exactly a year ago. What was a matter of four or five days? Was it simply thoughtlessness on the part of my right hon. Friend's officers, or was it designed to prevent Captain Hankin from making a nuisance of himself by insisting on his rights? The House is entitled to an answer to that question.
It was only by most fortunate series of circumstances that Captain Hankin's position was saved. Fortunately, he was at home when the letter arrived. He had four days, including the weekend, to do something and, fortunately, he realised, although we had never met, that his Member for Parliament was the person to go to at once, and within an hour or so of receiving the letter, fortunately, he put the papers in my hand.
When I read them I realised that speed was vital. We must catch up with the


bureaucratic machine which was to publish this devastating statement about him on Wednesday morning. Providence was on his side, because I discovered that the Minister was to answer questions orally on the Wednesday, and, therefore, by acting at once it was possible to put down Questions, which appeared on the Order Paper of the House of Commons, to give him, at any rate, a chance to catch up, and those Question were dealt with on that day, as the House will know.
I also wrote the Minister a personal note appealing to him to delay the publication of the report pending dealing with my Question. After a year one might have thought two or three days would not matter, but it was too late for that. I do not blame my right hon. Friend personally for a moment, but the Whitehall machine was too efficient. Copies of the report had already been distributed to the Press and the release time had been fixed, but they had not been provided for Members of Parliament. Even on the Wednesday morning there were no copies of that report available in the Library or the Vote Office, until I insisted on the telephone to the Department that they should be produced. That, perhaps, will be explained.
It is with a full sense of responsibility that I say this, and I must challenge my right hon. Friend to deny it if he can. But for this fire brigade action which I was able to take, before the end of the Easter Recess and while the House was not sitting, Captain Hankin would have been deprived of his licence. The only thing that stopped it was the power of the House of Commons and public opinion when reports appeared in the Press of the Questions and Answers in the House on 25th March. I say to the Minister in all seriousness that I believe that the whole House and the general public will say that such behaviour by his Department will not be tolerated again.
Next, I come to the report itself. In paragraph 7, the report contains this statement:
 Compliance with regulations.
In conducting this investigation the provisions of paragraph (5) of Regulation 7 of the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations, 1951… have been complied with.

The Regulations say that the report must contain a statement showing to what extent the Regulations have been complied with. That does not appear in the report and it does not appear for the very good reason that as soon as one inquires to what extent they have been complied with, one sees the nakedness of the claim.
Let us consider what has been done. How far had Captain Hankin been allowed an opportunity of making a statement, examining witnesses, cross-examining witnesses, and taking the other steps necessary to vindicate himself? He was permitted, when he had a broken back and was in hospital two days after the crash, to make a statement. Many months later, in November and December, he had several interviews with the chief inspector, one lasting two and a half hours. That was all. He did not get the opportunity, for which he asked, of examining and cross-examining witnesses. Still less was he allowed to put forward and have considered his grounds for a public inquiry, which he thought ought to take place in the public interest.
It is rather dreadful to find that he wrote no fewer than four letters requesting that he should be allowed to exercise his rights under Regulation 7 (5). Only one of those letters was even acknowledged. None was answered. I have those letters with me, although I do not have time to read them because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. It is rather tragic that a man who is in danger of losing his whole livelihood as a pilot should appeal for his rights under a Statute and not even have his letters answered by the Minister. How does my right hon. Friend propose to explain that?
I have the letters with me. One is dated 4th November, 1958; there is no answer to that. The next is dated 23rd November, 1958; the next 6th December; and the next was written in January. In the letter of 6th December he actually set out a number of detailed points with which he wanted to deal and about which he wished to examine witnesses and so forth. He said:
The controller had conflicting altitudes reported to him.…controller aware that an altitude reporting error had been made…? If so, why did he not check with the pilot…?


Another subject was the question of the altimeter, with which I do not have time to deal but which has become notorious. The letter concludes:
… I would like to ask you to authorise a public inquiry… as it seems possible that all the relevant facts…
cannot be obtained in any other way. There was no answer. In his letter of 9th January, he said:
A reply to my letter.. would be appreciated…
A reply by the Minister to the debate tonight would be appreciated.
Eventually, one acknowledgement appeared. It was not a statement that he was to get his rights, or anything of that kind. It was this:
The representations made by you, both in writing and by telephone, have been carefully considered and it is now my duty to forward my report on the accident to the Minister.
I can supply one reason why those letters were not answered. The main burden of Captain Hankins' complaint and request was that he could exercise his rights properly only if it were done by a public inquiry, and that the public interest could only be served in that way.
He was not told, and I did not know until last Monday, that it had been decided months before that there would be no public inquiry. His letters were, in effect, meaningless. Would it not have been fairer and straighter to have written back and said, " I am sorry, you have ' had it '? We had already decided not to have a public inquiry before we consulted you at all." That would have been an honest thing to say, but it would not have looked very good.
I have no more time to say more now, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), who can speak on behalf of the Pilots' Association and its view of this mater, desires to say a few words before the Minister replies.
What does my right hon. Friend propose to do about this matter? I put it in this way, that, first, we are entitled to a frank admission that Captain Hankin has not had his rights as provided for by the Statute. Secondly, we are entitled to know what the Minister proposes to do to give Captain Hankin redress far the absence of those rights. Thirdly, we are entitled to know what the Minister

intends to do to ensure that no such case can recur in future. We demand answers to those three questions. We must have them this evening, or obtain them in some other way.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Frank Beswick: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has made a formidable case and I know that the House would like to hear the Minister's answer. Many people will be grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and not only those who are immediately interested.
It is essential that a man whose career is prejudiced has a fair hearing. The procedure that was followed in this case did not give this pilot a fair hearing. We want to know, either that the Regulations were not followed, in which case there should be some explanation, or we should have a definite assurance that the Regulations will be amended in future. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us one way or the other.

10.24 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I will satisfy the hon. Gentleman the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) right away by saying that the Regulations were fully and completely satisfied, as I said when the Question was raised in the House. I will now explain why and how.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Silly Regulations.

Mr. Watkinson: I do not blame my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) for pressing the case for one of his constituents. The House would be a very poor place if we did not do that, but whether he has done it in the best way is for him to judge and not me. My duty is to be responsible for over 4 million passengers whose safety is in the charge of my Ministry. I want to make it plain to this House that I entirely support the action of my Chief Inspector of Accidents. His duty to find out the cause of an accident was fully carried out in this case, and I will do nothing that will in the slightest detract from the necessity for him and his other inspectors dealing with these matters in a way which preserves general safety even if it sometimes causes complaint by individuals.

Mr. Hirst: That is not the point.

Mr. Watkinson: As to the case of Captain Hankin, there are a good many other sides to this case and I will give as many of them as time permits. First, my right hon. and learned Friend said, or implied, that the first statement was taken from him under difficult conditions. That was not the case at all. A representative of his union —B.A.L.P.A. —was present when the statement was taken and a doctor's clearance was obtained for the statement to be made. This statement was given to me in the inspector's report and it had been digested by me when I decided whether there should be a public inquiry. The statement clearly sets out that the pilot, Captain Hankin, realised as soon as he got out of the aircraft that he had made an error.
My right hon. and learned Friend would have been fairer if he had quoted the letter written by Captain Hankin on 4th November. because it throws a different light on the matter. On that date Captain Hankin wrote to my Ministry, and it is only fair for me to say this was after two and a half hours during which Captain Hankin had every opportunity to ask any questions he wanted to ask—ch he at no time asked—examine witnesses, then or at any time. Although he had the full range of these rights explained to him, and set out in a letter sent to him, in his letter he wrote:
Whilst not disputing that some degree of responsibility for the accident to G-AORC may be attributed to me
those are very significant words—
I find myself unable to relinquish the right to challenge the evidence contained in the Report, should such a step appear necessary, because I have not been permitted to see the Repot.
That is common form. No man in these cases is permitted to see the report.
The case that I want to make, and which it would have been fairer of my right hon. and learned Friend to have disclosed, is that Captain Hankin—doing so he was acting honestly and honourably—ays disclosed that he accepted a certain measure of responsibility. That is one of the reasons why I decided not to have a public inquiry. That is one of the criteria of which I have to take account when considering

whether or not a public inquiry is necessary.
There is a lot to be said in this case for justice to be done to my Ministry. A lot of wild allegations have been made by my right hon. and learned Friend. For example, he said that my Ministry has behaved in an inhuman fashion. That is not so. Let us take another side of the case. On 20th October, when it became clear that Captain Hankin might be held blameworthy, a letter was sent to him by the chief inspector, fully setting out his rights. The letter said:
Where it appears to the Inspector that any degree of responsibility for the accident may he attributed to any person, and if it appears to the Inspector to he practicable so to do, that person or, if he be deceased, his legal personal representatives, shall be given notice that blame may be attributed to him and be permitted to make a statement or give evidence and to produce witnesses and to examine any witnesses from whose evidence it appears that he may be blameworthy. 1 therefore have the duty to inform you that some degree of responsibility for the accident may be attributed to you in the circumstances outlined in the accompanying certificate. If you wish to attend this Office in order to exercise your rights under this Regulation an appointment can be made for you on request during the week beginning October 20th.
That was the date of the letter. Captain Hankin fully exercised his rights. I have been most carefully into the matter and I find that at no time did he ask to call any witnesses or further to exercise his rights, which had been clearly pointed out to him under the Regulations.
We now come to the question of Captain Hankin's reiterated view—quite natural view— felt that if a public inquiry had been held he might have derived some advantage there from. The Regulations give the Minister discretion in this matter. The Minister is rightly held by this House to take as his criteria the interests of the pilot as well as the ascertainment of the cause of the accident. As, in this case, the pilot had accepted at least a measure of responsibility, and as the cause of the accident was clear, and no passenger lives were lost— the aircraft was not on a passenger flight-4 felt that the public interest would not be served in this case by the full range of a public inquiry. That does not mean that I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's view that this man has not had his fair and just rights.
I now turn to the question of Captain Hankin's future, because my right hon. and learned Friend is quite right to say that his interest is to try to see that his future is protected as far as possible. That thought was always in my mind, and I would certainly tell my right hon. and learned Friend that in view of the circumstances, which I have considered very carefully, I do not think that there is cause either to withdraw or cancel Captain Hankin's airline pilot's licence. I hope that will be some satisfaction to my right hon. and learned Friend. If he thought we were going to do that, I think he was rather misjudging us.
Certainly, we should not have done it without further consultation with Captain Hankin. Anyway, he may like to know that, having considered these matters carefully, my personal view is that I am not obliged to take action to suspend or to withdraw Captain Hankin's licence. That perhaps will get that matter out of the way.
The main point I want to make is this. These investigations are a very difficult job for the Chief Inspector. To call the Chief Inspector and the staff—cidentally, are quite independent, not part of my Ministry but appointed by the Minister and responsible only to him" inhuman bureaucrats" is, in my view, overstating the case. They have a single-minded duty to get at the truth. With all my experience at the Ministry, with an average of 50 or 60 accidents a year to investigate, I have never found them fail in their duty. So I hope the House will accept that on the issue, which is our main responsibility, of finding the cause of the accident, which was clearly established, no blame and no imputation should be laid on my inspectorate.
We come to the second issue, the issue as to whether this man—leave aside the legal niceties, although I want to make it quite plain that the action taken was entirely within the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations— rights. I am quite sure that, all through, Captain Hankin was properly warned. He was properly told what he rights were. His case was sympathetically examined with him. He was told clearly what his position was. He was told clearly what his rights were. I do not deny for a moment and I do

not differ from my right hon. and learned Friend in saying that he might have misunderstood exactly what his position at any time was. I think he certainly misunderstood that he could no longer demand a public inquiry at the late stage at which he was writing letters asking that a public inquiry should be held.

Mr. Hirst: He did not know.

Mr. Watkinson: He did know because it was clearly explained to him, as I have pointed out, by two letters and in a two and-a-half hours interview and in subsequent telephone conversations.

Mr. Beswick: At what date?

Mr. Watkinson: He was told initially in the first letter I read to the House, dated 20th October.

Mr. Beswick: The decision was made in May, 1958.

Mr. Watkinson: I have said the decision was made on the basis of the initial statement taken from Captain Hankin, with his union present, on 9th May, so there is no conflict in the dates.
I want to finish what I was going to say. Is it possible that by staying within the letter of the law there may be some risk that some injustice may be done to a pilot? All I say and I hope the House will trust me in saying it, is that if I thought that were so I should see that it was righted. My right hon. and learned Friend has put forward a case in which it might be said that a man misunderstood the position. Ever since the Winter Hill crash, two years ago, we have been looking into the question of pilots who survive and may be held blameworthy. We have been considering the whole position of these men to see if we can clarify it and make more clear to them what their rights are and to see that they obtain them.
That is important and shortly I shall be bringing before the House the clarification of these Regulations. I shall take careful note of what my right hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Uxbridge have said, 'because it is my wish to see that justice appears to be done as well as seeing that the Regulations are kept. I certainly give an undertaking to the House that 1 will most carefully examine this whole matter again in the sense that we must


see whether there is anything that we can do to ensure that a man does not misunderstand his position.
I do not disagree with my hon. and learned Friend putting his case high. I sincerely believe that this man had a fair deal but I equally accept from him that he may have misunderstood his position. I therefore think it my duty to see whether we can clarify the position in order to see that it does not happen again. I will do that, and I shall be bringing our proposals before the House in due course. As I said, we have been working on them for about two years. It is a very difficult matter but I hope that we shall be able to make some improvement.
To sum up, Captain Hankin will not have his licence withdrawn. He is still flying. I may say that he lost his job with B.E.A. not as a result of anything my Ministry did, but as a result of a disciplinary inquiry in B.E.A. long before the report of my inspector was published. That is not in issue in this case. What is in issue is whether we can do any more to make it plain to a man in his position exactly what his rights are and how he should exercise them. That I have undertaken to examine, and I hope that the examination will be beneficial in the future. It is certainly my wish to see that men in this difficult position, when perhaps they have suffered the loss of their comrades in aircrew, should have justice done to them.
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the question of altimeters. It is only fair to say that the altimeter in this aircraft was of a modified type which already had an important modification on the middle pointer, which is the pointer most likely to be misread. A circle had been placed on the pointer.
I will gladly show any hon. Members who wish to see it a photograph of the instrument. I do not think it can be said, therefore, that he had not the most modern and best type of altimeter. We are, of course, taking further steps to improve the presentation, as I think is right, but it is right for me to say that he had the benefit of a most modern instrument, which had a modified pointer, which considerably reduces the risk of misreading. On all those technical grounds I believe that he had the best assistance which could be given to him.
As to whether there is any more that we can do to help him, in the last few days I have been through his case with a fine tooth-comb—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to Eleven o'clock.